Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29249015›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2018

Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review.

Lidia García-Pérez, Renata Linertová, Margarita Álvarez-de-la-Rosa, Juan Carlos Bayón, Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia, Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez, Pedro Serrano-Aguilar

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lidia García-PérezServicio de Evaluación, Servicio Canario de la Salud, Camino Candelaria Nº 44, 1ª planta, El Rosario, 38109, Santa Cruz De Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. lidia.garciaperez@sescs.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5626-8116
Renata LinertováServicio de Evaluación, Servicio Canario de la Salud, Camino Candelaria Nº 44, 1ª planta, El Rosario, 38109, Santa Cruz De Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.
Margarita Álvarez-de-la-RosaObstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital Universitario de Canarias (HUC), Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Carretera de Ofra s/n, La Cuesta, La Laguna, 38320, Santa Cruz De Tenerife, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0798-2161
Juan Carlos BayónDepartment of Health, Basque Government, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (OSTEBA), Alameda Rekalde Nº 39, 48008, Bilbao, Spain.
Iñaki Imaz-IglesiaRed de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7864-4194
Jorge Ferrer-RodríguezFundación Canaria de Investigación Sanitaria (FUNCANIS), Camino Candelaria Nº 44, 1ª planta, El Rosario, 38109, Santa Cruz De Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.
Pedro Serrano-AguilarServicio de Evaluación, Servicio Canario de la Salud, Camino Candelaria Nº 44, 1ª planta, El Rosario, 38109, Santa Cruz De Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood, often called the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), in the prenatal screening of trisomy in chromosomes 21, 18 and 13. MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched in April 2017. We selected: (1) economic evaluations that estimated the costs and detected cases of trisomy 21, 18 or 13; (2) comparisons of prenatal screening with NIPT (universal or contingent strategies) and the usual screening without NIPT, (3) in pregnant women with any risk of foetal anomalies. Studies were reviewed by two researchers. Data were extracted, the methodological quality was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 12 studies were included, four of them performed in Europe. Three studies evaluated NIPT as a contingent test, three studies evaluated a universal NIPT, and six studies evaluated both. The results are heterogeneous, especially for the contingent NIPT where the results range from NIPT being dominant to a dominated strategy. Universal NIPT was found to be more effective but also costlier than the usual screening, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One advantage of screening with NIPT is lower invasive procedure-related foetal losses than with usual screening. In conclusion, the cost-effectiveness of contingent NIPT is uncertain according to several studies, while the universal NIPT is not cost-effective currently.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsCost-Benefit AnalysisDown SyndromeEuropeFemaleHumansPregnancyTrisomyTrisomy 13 SyndromeTrisomy 18 SyndromeCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCell-free DNACost-effectivenessNon-invasive prenatal testPrenatal screeningSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.