Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31344071›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Cost and efficacy comparison of prenatal recall and reflex DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13.

Jonathan Paul Bestwick, Nicholas John Wald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Jonathan Paul BestwickWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3088-8616
Nicholas John WaldWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1676-5908

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare costs and efficacy of reflex and recall prenatal DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (affected pregnancies). In both methods women have Combined test markers measured. With recall screening, women with a high Combined test risk are recalled for counselling and offered a DNA blood test or invasive diagnostic testing. With reflex screening, a DNA analysis is automatically performed on plasma collected when blood was collected for measurement of the Combined test markers.

methodsPublished data were used to estimate, for each method, using various unit costs and risk cut-offs, the cost per woman screened, cost per affected pregnancy diagnosed, and for a given number of women screened, numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, unaffected pregnancies with positive results, and women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing.

resultsCost per woman screened is lower with reflex v recall screening: £37 v £38, and £11,043 v £11,178 per affected pregnancy diagnosed (DNA £250, Combined test markers risk cut-off 1 in 150). Reflex screening results in similar numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, with 100-fold fewer false-positives and 20-fold fewer women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing.

conclusionsReflex DNA screening is less expensive, more cost-effective, and safer than recall screening.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingAdultAftercareBiomarkersCost-Benefit AnalysisDown SyndromeDuty to RecontactFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMaternal AgeMaternal Serum Screening TestsPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstPrenatal DiagnosisPrevalenceBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID31344071
PMCPMC6658079

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.