Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37713438›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Economic evaluation of prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies in Thailand.

Preechaya Wongkrajang, Jiraphun Jittikoon, Wanvisa Udomsinprasert, Pattarawalai Talungchit, Sermsiri Sangroongruangsri, Saowalak Turongkaravee, Usa Chaikledkaew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  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

7 authors.

Preechaya WongkrajangSocial, Economic and Administrative Pharmacy (SEAP) Graduate Program, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-4660-3961
Jiraphun JittikoonDepartment of Biochemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wanvisa UdomsinprasertDepartment of Biochemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pattarawalai TalungchitDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-3668-8754
Sermsiri SangroongruangsriSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Saowalak TurongkaraveeSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Usa ChaikledkaewMahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9457-9823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, there has been a lack of cost-effectiveness data regarding the inclusion of universal non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 in the benefit package of the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in Thailand. Therefore, this study aimed to perform the cost-benefit analysis of prenatal screening tests and calculate the budget impact that would result from the implementation of a universal NIPT program. A decision-tree model was employed to evaluate cost and benefit of different prenatal chromosomal abnormalities screenings: 1) first-trimester screening (FTS), 2) NIPT, and 3) definitive diagnostic (amniocentesis). The comparison was made between these screenings and no screening in three groups of pregnant women: all ages, < 35 years, and ≥ 35 years. The analysis was conducted from societal and governmental perspectives. The costs comprised direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs, while the benefit was cost-avoidance associated with caring for children with trisomy and the loss of productivity for caregivers. Parameter uncertainties were evaluated through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. From a governmental perspective, all three methods were found to be cost-beneficial. Among them, FTS was identified as the most cost-beneficial, especially for pregnant women aged ≥ 35 years. From a societal perspective, the definitive diagnostic test was not cost-effective, but the other two screening tests were. The most sensitive parameters for FTS and NIPT strategies were the productivity loss of caregivers and the incidence of trisomy 21. Our study suggested that NIPT was the most cost-effective strategy in Thailand, if the cost was reduced to 47 USD. This evidence-based information can serve as a crucial resource for policymakers when making informed decisions regarding the allocation of resources for prenatal care in Thailand and similar context.

Indexed as

Down SyndromePrenatal CareAdultAneuploidyChildCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisThailand

Identifiers

PMID37713438
PMCPMC10503713

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.