ArticleFetal diagnosis and therapy2019
Clinical and Economic Impact of Adopting Noninvasive Prenatal Testing as a Primary Screening Method for Fetal Aneuploidies in the General Pregnancy Population.
Article in Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) versus direct amniocentesis for screening of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies in Brazilian private health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- Article
- Determining the origin of genome aberrations improves the positive predictive value of NIPT for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 'Screening should not be based on ability to pay': Australian healthcare providers' and consumers' perspectives on public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2025Article
- Uptake rates for non-invasive prenatal screening for single-gene disorders associated with advanced paternal age.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- High platelet distribution width affects the detection of fetal fraction of cell-free DNA detected by non-invasive prenatal testing.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Advancements in nanobiosensor technologies for in-vitro diagnostics to point of care testing.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Article
- Does a High-Risk (>1/50) Result for First-Trimester Combined Screening Always Entail Invasive Testing? Which Patients from This Group Might Benefit from cfDNA Testing?Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Cell-Free Fetal Deoxyribonucleic Acid (cffDNA) Analysis as a Remarkable Method of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening.Cureus · 2022Review
- Observational
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Review
- Prenatal genetic diagnosis: Fetal therapy as a possible solution to a positive test.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
- Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues.Prenatal diagnosis · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical and economic impact of adopting noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using circulating cell-free DNA as a first-line screening method for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 in the general pregnancy population.
methodsA decision-analytical model was developed to assess the impact of adopting NIPT as a primary screening test compared to conventional screening methods. The model takes the Belgium perspective and includes only the direct medical cost of screening, diagnosis, and procedure-related complications. NIPT costs are EUR 260. Clinical outcomes and the cost per trisomy detected were assessed. Sensitivity analysis measured the impact of NIPT false-positive rate (FPR) on modelled results.
resultsThe cost per trisomy detected was EUR 63,016 for conventional screening versus EUR 66,633 for NIPT, with a difference of EUR 3,617. NIPT reduced unnecessary invasive tests by 94.8%, decreased procedure-related miscarriages by 90.8%, and increased trisomies detected by 29.1%. Increasing the FPR of NIPT (from < 0.01 to 1.0%) increased the average number of invasive procedures required to diagnose a trisomy from 2.2 to 4.5, respectively.
conclusionNIPT first-line screening at a reasonable cost is cost-effective and provides better clinical outcomes. However, modelled results are dependent on the adoption of an NIPT with a low FPR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.