Trial reportRevista de saude publica2023
Estimates of avoided costs attributed to a short cervix screening program to prevent preterm birth from the perspective of the Unified Health System (SUS).
Trial report in Revista de saude publica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform an economic cost analysis of the implementation of a short cervix screening program to reduce preterm birth in singleton pregnancies in a short-term time horizon.
methodsWe performed a cost-benefit economic analysis using the P5 trial database, a randomized multicenter clinical trial for prevention of preterm birth. Data collection was conducted from July 2015 to March 2019 in 17 different Brazilian hospitals. We conducted a cost analysis for universal cervical screening in singleton pregnancies between 18 weeks and 22 weeks plus 6 days. In subjects with a cervical length ≤ 25 mm, the analysis incorporated the costs of administering 200 mg/day of vaginal progesterone prophylactically until 36 weeks gestation. These findings were subsequently compared with the economic implications of forgoing cervical screening. The time horizon comprised from birth to 10 weeks postpartum. The outcome was measured monetarily in Brazilian real (R$) from the perspective of the Unified Health System.
resultsAmong 7,844 women, 6.67% (523) had a cervix ≤ 25 mm. The cost of screening with transvaginal ultrasound and vaginal progesterone for prevention of births with < 34 weeks was estimated at R$ 383,711.36, while non-screening generated an estimated additional cost of R$ 446,501.69 (related to the 29 non-screened preterm deliveries). Thus, screening and prophylaxis would generate a final cost reduction of R$ 62,790.33, constituting a possible cost-benefit strategy.
conclusionUniversal short cervix screening for preterm birth has lower costs compared to non-screening within a short-term time horizon, which suggests an interesting benefit-cost ratio. Future studies should consider the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic treatment using sensitivity analyses in different scenarios within the Brazilian health system, as well as analyses that consider the long-term costs associated with preterm births, to robustly justify the implementation of a short cervix screening program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.