Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31230226›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2019

The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.

Nikita M John, Stuart J Wright, Sean P Gavan, Caroline M Vass

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. 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

4 authors.

Nikita M JohnManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Stuart J WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-7998
Sean P GavanManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-056X
Caroline M VassManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. caroline.vass@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6385-2812

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological progress has led to changes in the antenatal screening programmes, most significantly the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). The availability of a new type of testing changes the type of information that the parent(s) require before, during and after screening to mitigate anxiety about the testing process and results.

objectivesTo identify the extent to which economic evaluations of NIPT have accounted for the need to provide information alongside testing and the associated costs and health outcomes of information provision.

methodsA systematic review of economic evaluations of NIPTs (up to February 2018) was conducted. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO were searched using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter (from NHS economic evaluations database) with terms related to NIPT and screening-related technologies. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards framework and the results were summarised as part of a narrative synthesis.

resultsA total of 12 economic evaluations were identified. The majority of evaluations (n = 10; 83.3%) involved cost effectiveness analysis. Only four studies (33.3%) included the cost of providing information about NIPT in their economic evaluation. Two studies considered the impact of test results on parents' quality of life by allowing utility decrements for different outcomes. Some studies suggested that the challenges of valuing information prohibited their inclusion in an economic evaluation.

conclusionEconomic evaluations of NIPTs need to account for the costs and outcomes associated with information provision, otherwise estimates of cost effectiveness may prove inaccurate.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPregnancyQuality of LifeAneuploidyCost effectivenessDown’s syndromeInformationNIPTPrenatal testing

Identifiers

PMID31230226
PMCPMC6803567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.