ArticleBMJ open2021
Introducing the non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of Down syndrome in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 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
- Retrospective study on NIPT or NIPT plus combined with ultrasound in screening fetal chromosomal abnormalities.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (dPCR) in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT).Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for Down syndrome: a real-world analysis in 140,472 women.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- An assessment of analytical performance using the six sigma scale in second-trimester maternal prenatal screening practices in China.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of total prevalence, perinatal prevalence, and livebirth prevalence of birth defects in Hunan Province, China, 2016-2020.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Associated congenital heart disease with Hirschsprung's disease: a retrospective cohort study on 2,174 children.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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 dPCR-NIPT assay for detections of trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in a single-tube reaction-could it replace serum biochemical tests as a primary maternal plasma screening tool?Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the health economic value of a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) strategy against a second-trimester triple screening (STS) strategy for the detection of Down syndrome based on real-world data from China.
designA decision-analytical model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of five strategies from a societal perspective. Cost and probability input data were obtained from the real-world surveys and published sources.
settingChina.
participantsWomen with a singleton pregnancy.
interventionsThe five strategies for screening were: (A) maternal age with STS (no NIPT); (B) STS plus NIPT screening; (C) age-STS plus NIPT screening (the currently referral strategy in China); (D) maternal age with NIPT screening and (E) universal NIPT screening.
main outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per additional Down syndrome case terminated, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were obtained.
resultsStrategy A detected the least number of Down syndrome cases. Compared with the cheapest Strategy B, Strategy D had the lowest ICER (incremental cost, US$98 944.85 per additional Down syndrome case detected). Strategy D had the highest probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay level between US$110 000.00 and US$535 000.00 per additional Down syndrome case averted. Strategy E would not be cost-effective unless the unit cost of the NIPT could be decreased to US$60.50.
conclusionIntroducing NIPT screening strategies was beneficial over the use of STS strategy alone. Evaluating maternal age in combination with the NIPT screening strategy performs better than China's currently referral strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness and safety. Lowering the price of NIPT and optimising payment methods are effective measures to promote universal NIPT strategies in China.
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.