Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34429311›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Methods for evaluating the benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes adopted by health economic assessments: protocol for a systematic review.

May Ee Png, Miaoqing Yang, Nia Roberts, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Stavros Petrou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. International Newborn Screening: Where Are We in Saudi Arabia?Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2024
    Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

May Ee PngNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5876-9363
Miaoqing YangNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1841-4346
Oliver Rivero-AriasNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK oliver.rivero@npeu.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2233-6544
Stavros PetrouNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3121-6050
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0501681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComplex organisational arrangements are required to deliver antenatal and newborn screening programmes. Decision-makers consider the benefits and harms of screening when reviewing the evidence about these programmes. Economic evaluations contribute one important part of this assessment process. However, it is not fully understood what approaches health economic assessments have adopted to measure and value benefits and harms. This study aims to systematically review and critique the published and grey literature on methods for identifying, measuring and valuing the benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening adopted by health economic assessments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Nine bibliographic databases will be searched from 2000 onwards. These search strategies will be supplemented by manual reference searching of bibliographies, forward citation searching, contacts with experts, author searching and web searching for grey literature. Studies will be selected for review if they report health economic assessments of an antenatal or newborn screening programme. Assessments of title and abstracts and full reports will be undertaken independently with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extraction will include fields to assess the reporting quality of the studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and a bespoke ancillary form to assess how benefits and harms have been accounted for. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is an evidence synthesis review from already published materials and hence ethics committee approval or written informed consent will not be required. Our results will be disseminated by publishing in high-impact peer-review journals and presenting at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020165236.

Indexed as

Economics, MedicalNeonatal ScreeningCost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, BibliographicFemaleGray LiteratureHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancySystematic Reviews as Topichealth economicsobstetricspreventive medicine

Identifiers

PMID34429311
PMCPMC8386210
OpenAlexW3195105048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.