Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31962312›Full record

ArticleFetal diagnosis and therapy2020

Exome Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Genetic Abnormalities in Fetal Ultrasound Anomalies: An Economic Evaluation.

Shahela S Kodabuckus, Elizabeth Quinlan-Jones, Dominic J McMullan, Eamonn R Maher, Matthew E Hurles, Pelham M Barton, Mark D Kilby

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Implementation of a National Prenatal Exome Sequencing Service in England: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shahela S KodabuckusHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Quinlan-JonesBirmingham Women's and Children's Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Dominic J McMullanWest Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women's and Children's Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Eamonn R MaherDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Matthew E HurlesWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Pelham M BartonHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Mark D KilbyInstitute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, m.d.kilby@bham.ac.uk.
University of Birmingham · GBChildren’s Foundation · GBNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreWellcome Sanger Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn light of the prospective Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) study, this paper aimed to determine the additional costs of using exome sequencing (ES) alongside or in place of chromosomal microarray (CMA) in a fetus with an identified congenital anomaly.

methodsA decision tree was populated using data from a prospective cohort of women undergoing invasive diagnostic testing. Four testing strategies were evaluated: CMA, ES, CMA followed by ES ("stepwise"); CMA and ES combined.

resultsWhen ES is priced at GBP 2,100 (EUR 2,407/USD 2,694), performing ES alone prenatally would cost a further GBP 31,410 (EUR 36,001/USD 40,289) per additional genetic diagnosis, whereas the stepwise would cost a further GBP 24,657 (EUR 28,261/USD 31,627) per additional genetic diagnosis. When ES is priced at GBP 966 (EUR 1,107/USD 1,239), performing ES alone prenatally would cost a further GBP 11,532 (EUR 13,217/USD 14,792) per additional genetic diagnosis, whereas the stepwise would cost a further additional GBP 11,639 (EUR 13,340/USD 14,929) per additional genetic diagnosis. The sub-group analysis suggests that performing stepwise on cases indicative of multiple anomalies at ultrasound scan (USS) compared to cases indicative of a single anomaly, is more cost-effective compared to using ES alone. DISCUSSION/

conclusionPerforming ES alongside CMA is more cost-effective than ES alone, which can potentially lead to improvements in pregnancy management. The direct effects of test results on pregnancy outcomes were not examined; therefore, further research is recommended to examine changes on the projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision TreesExomeExome SequencingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenetic TestingHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPregnancyProspective StudiesUltrasonography, PrenatalChromosomal microarrayEconomic evaluationExome sequencingFetal anomaly

Identifiers

PMID31962312
PMCPMC7446299
OpenAlexW3002658144

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.