ArticlePloS one2019
The contingent use of cell-free fetal DNA for prenatal screening of trisomies 21, 18, 13 in pregnant women within a national health service: A budget impact analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive prenatal tests for chromosomal abnormality screening in in vitro fertilisation elderly pregnant women in northwest China.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
- Maternal Reassurance, Satisfaction, and Anxiety after First-Trimester Screening for Aneuploidies: Comparison between Contingent Screening and Universal Cell-Free DNA Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A new contingent screening strategy increased detection rate of trisomy 21 in the first trimester.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Noninvasive fetal genotyping of single nucleotide variants and linkage analysis for prenatal diagnosis of monogenic disorders.Human genomics · 2022Article
- A Retrospective Analysis Of Different Contingent Screening Models For Fetal Down Syndrome In Southwestern China.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) based on cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) is highly accurate in the detection of common fetal autosomal trisomies. Aim of this project was to investigate short-term costs and clinical outcomes of the contingent use of cffDNA for prenatal screening of trisomies 21, 18, 13 within a national health service (NHS).
methodsAn economic analysis was developed from the perspective of the Italian NHS to compare two possible scenarios for managing pregnant women: women managed according to the Standard of Care screening (SoC) vs a cffDNA scenario, where Harmony Prenatal Test was introduced as a second line screening choice for women with an "at risk" result from SoC screening.
resultsThe introduction of cffDNA as a second line screening test, conditional to a risk ≥ 1:1,000 from SoC screening, showed a 3% increase in the detection of trisomies, with a 71% decrease in the number of invasive tests performed. Total short-term costs (pregnancy management until childbirth) decreased by € 19 million (from € 84.5 to 65.5 million).
conclusionThe adoption of the Harmony Prenatal Test in women resulting at risk from SoC screening, implied a greater number of trisomies detection, together with a reduction of the healthcare costs.
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.