Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35195310›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2022

Cost-effectiveness of cervical length screening and progesterone treatment to prevent spontaneous preterm delivery in Sweden.

T Wikström, P Kuusela, B Jacobsson, H Hagberg, P Lindgren, M Svensson, U-B Wennerholm, L Valentin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Universal cervical-length screening to prevent preterm birth in twin pregnancy: cost-utility analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

T WikströmCentre of Perinatal Medicine and Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4208-8667
P KuuselaSödra Älvsborg Hospital, Borås, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9915-1201
B JacobssonCentre of Perinatal Medicine and Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5079-2374
H HagbergCentre of Perinatal Medicine and Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
P LindgrenDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5493-3402
M SvenssonSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
U-B Wennerholm *Centre of Perinatal Medicine and Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
L Valentin *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-6414
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SELund University · SESödra Älvsborg Hospital · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent spontaneous preterm delivery (PTD) in asymptomatic singleton pregnancies, using prevalence and healthcare cost data from the Swedish healthcare context.

methodsWe designed a decision analytic model based on the Swedish CERVIX study to estimate the cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent spontaneous PTD in asymptomatic women with a singleton pregnancy. The model was constructed as a combined decision-tree model and Markov model with a time horizon of 100 years. Four preventive strategies, namely 'Universal screening', 'High-risk-based screening' (i.e. screening of high-risk women only), 'Low-risk-based screening' (i.e. treatment of high-risk population and screening of remaining women) and 'Nullipara screening' (i.e. treatment of high-risk population and screening of nulliparous women only), included second-trimester cervical length (CL) screening by transvaginal ultrasound followed by vaginal progesterone treatment in the case of a short cervix. A fifth preventive strategy involved vaginal progesterone treatment of women with previous spontaneous PTD or late miscarriage but no CL screening ('No screening, treat high-risk group'). For comparison, we used a sixth strategy implying no specific intervention to prevent spontaneous PTD, reflecting the current situation in Sweden ('No screening'). Probabilities for a short cervix (CL ≤ 25 mm; base-case) and for spontaneous PTD at < 33 + 0 weeks and at 33 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks were derived from the CERVIX study, and probabilities for stillbirth, neonatal mortality and long-term morbidity (cerebral palsy) from Swedish health data registers. Costs were based on Swedish data, except costs for cerebral palsy, which were based on Danish data. We assumed that vaginal progesterone reduces spontaneous PTD before 33 weeks by 30% and spontaneous PTD at 33-36 weeks by 10% (based on the literature). All analyses were from a societal perspective. We expressed the effectiveness of each strategy as gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and presented cost-effectiveness as average (ACER; average cost per gained QALY compared with 'No screening') and incremental (ICER; difference in costs divided by the difference in QALYs for each of two strategies being compared) cost-effectiveness ratios. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results of the latter are shown as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Willingness-to-pay was set at a maximum of 500 000 Swedish krona (56 000 US dollars (USD)), as suggested by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

resultsAll interventions had better health outcomes than did 'No screening', with fewer screening-year deaths and more lifetime QALYs. The best strategy in terms of improved health outcomes was 'Low-risk-based screening', irrespective of whether screening was performed at 18 + 0 to 20 + 6 weeks (Cx1) or at 21 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks (Cx2). 'Low-risk-based screening' at Cx1 was cost-effective, while 'Low-risk-based screening' at Cx2 entailed high costs compared with other alternatives. The ACERs were 2200 USD for 'Low-risk-based screening' at Cx1 and 36 800 USD for 'Low-risk-based screening' at Cx2. Cost-effectiveness was particularly sensitive to progesterone effectiveness and to productivity loss due to sick leave during pregnancy. The probability that 'Low-risk-based screening' at Cx1 is cost-effective compared with 'No screening' was 71%.

conclusionInterventions to prevent spontaneous PTD in asymptomatic women with a singleton pregnancy, including CL screening with progesterone treatment of cases with a short cervix, may be cost-effective in Sweden. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Cerebral PalsyPremature BirthCervical Length MeasurementCervix UteriCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyProgesteroneSwedenProgesteronecost-effectiveness analysispreterm deliveryprogesteronescreeningtransvaginal ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID35195310
PMCPMC9327505
OpenAlexW4213420399

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.