Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35763507›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland.

Janne C Mewes, Melanie Lindenberg, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Janne C MewesPanaxea b.v., Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands.
Melanie LindenbergPanaxea b.v., Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands.
Hubertus J M VrijhoefPanaxea b.v., Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5539-4671

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland.

methodsA health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted.

resultsThe incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were €14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were €3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of €4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy.

conclusionFor Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be €14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.

Indexed as

Pre-EclampsiaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGermanyHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID35763507
PMCPMC9239465

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.