Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36272385›Full record

SynthesisSocial science & medicine (1982)2022

Benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes in OECD countries: A systematic review of 336 articles and reports.

May Ee Png, Miaoqing Yang, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Svetlana Ratushnyak, Nia Roberts, Ashley White, Lisa Hinton, Felicity Boardman, Abigail McNiven, Jane Fisher and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

16 authors.

May Ee PngNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Miaoqing YangNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Svetlana RatushnyakNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ashley WhiteNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lisa HintonTHIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Felicity BoardmanWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Abigail McNivenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jane FisherAntenatal Results and Choices, UK.
Baskaran ThilaganathanSt George's University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sam OddieBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Children's Research, Bradford, UK.
Anne-Marie SlowtherWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Jenny Shilton OsborneNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stavros PetrouNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Oliver Rivero-AriasNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: oliver.rivero@npeu.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2016-09-018Department of Health NF-SI-0616-10103Department of Health NIHR127489Wellcome Trust 203384/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from a screening programme, driven by multiple complex benefits and harms, are justifiable. We systematically identified the benefits and harms incorporated within economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes.

methodsFor this systematic review and thematic analysis, we searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021. Studies that included an economic evaluation of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in an OECD country were eligible. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis, and illustrated a thematic framework. (Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42020165236).

findingsThe searches identified 52,244 articles and reports and 336 (242 antenatal and 95 newborn) were included. Eighty-six subthemes grouped into seven themes were identified: 1) diagnosis of screened for condition, 2) life years and health status adjustments, 3) treatment, 4) long-term costs, 5) overdiagnosis, 6) pregnancy loss, and 7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened for condition (115 studies, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90 studies, 37.2%) and treatment (88 studies, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored.

interpretationOur proposed framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes, to prevent exclusion of important potential benefits and harms.

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisAntenatalBenefitsCost-effectiveness analysisEconomic evaluationHarmsNewbornScreening programme

Identifiers

PMID36272385
PMCPMC9720154

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.