ArticleBMC health services research2019
Fetal Down syndrome screening models for developing countries; Part II: Cost-benefit analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prenatal Screening for Common Aneuploidy in Southeast Asian Countries: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Approaches to economic evaluations of complex interventions in thailand: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Improved contingent screening strategy increased trisomy 21 detection rate in the second trimester.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Clinical strategy study on prenatal screening and diagnostic model for Down syndrome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Mothers of children with Down syndrome: a clinical and epidemiological study.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Economic cost of patients with trisomy 13, 18, and 21 in a tertiary hospital in Thailand.PloS one · 2023Article
- Prenatal screening tests and prevalence of fetal aneuploidies in a tertiary hospital in Thailand.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo identify the most cost-beneficial model as a national policy of screening and diagnosis of fetal Down syndrome (DS) in developing countries.
methodsCost-benefit analysis (CBA) was performed based on the effectiveness and probabilities derived from a large prospective study on MSS (maternal serum screening) among Thai population. Various models including maternal age alone, STS (second trimester screen), I-S (independent screen: first or second trimester screen depending on the time of first visit), C-S (contingent serum screen) plus STS, maternal age with NIPS (non-invasive prenatal test), STS alone with NIPS, I-S with NIPS, C-S plus STS with NIPS, and Universal NIPS were compared.
resultsI-S with NIPS as a secondary screening was most cost-beneficial (Benefit/Cost ratio 4.28). Cost-benefit is directly related to the costs of NIPS.
conclusionIn addition to simplicity and feasibility, I-S with expensive NIPS as a secondary screening is the most cost-beneficial method for low resource settings and should be included in universal healthcare coverage as a national policy. This study could be a model for developing countries or a guideline for international health organizations to help low resource countries, probably leading to a paradigm shift in prenatal diagnosis of fetal DS in the developing world.
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.