ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: a comparative performance and cost analysis of different screening strategies.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Systematic Review of Accuracy Differences in NIPT Methods for Common Aneuploidy Screening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Improved contingent screening strategy increased trisomy 21 detection rate in the second trimester.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Analysis of Down syndrome newborn outcomes in three neonatal intensive care units in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Non-Invasive prenatal testing with rolling circle amplification: Real-world clinical experience in a non-molecular laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Article
- Maternal prenatal screening programs that predict trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and neural tube defects in offspring.PloS one · 2023Article
- False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?Molecular cytogenetics · 2022Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Assessment and Clinical Utility of a Non-Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing Technology.Current issues in molecular biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrenatal screening for chromosome aneuploidies have constantly been evolving, especially with the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening in the most recent years. This study compares the performance, costs and timing of test results of three cfDNA screening implementation strategies: contingent, reflex and primary.
methodsWe modelled enhanced first trimester screening (eFTS) as the first-tier test in contingent or reflex strategies. cfDNA test was performed contingent on or reflex from eFTS results. A comparison was made between cfDNA screening using sequencing technology and Rolling Circle Amplification (RCA)/imaging solution. All model assumptions were based on results from previous publications or information from the Ontario prenatal screening population.
resultsAt an eFTS risk cut-off of ≥1/1000, contingent and reflex cfDNA screening have the same detection rate (DR) (94%) for trisomy 21. Reflex cfDNA screening using RCA/Imaging solution provided the lowest false positive rate and cost. The number of women requiring genetic counselling and diagnostic testing was significantly reduced and women received their cfDNA screening result 9 days sooner compared with the contingent model. While primary cfDNA screening improved the trisomy 21 DR by 3-5%, it was more costly and more women required diagnostic testing.
conclusionReflex cfDNA screening is the most cost-effective prenatal screening strategy. It can improve the efficiency of prenatal aneuploidy screening by reducing the number of patient visits and providing more timely results.
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.