ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
A cost-effectiveness analysis of pre-pregnancy genetic screening for deafness: an empirical study in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Progress in Mechanism-Based Therapies forInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Estimated cost-effectiveness of early screening strategies for newborn hearing impairment using a Markov model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This research aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pre-pregnancy deafness screening policies. Methods: Married couples from Shanghai, Beijing, and Suzhou in China were enrolled. We conducted high-throughput, pre-pregnancy genetic screenings for deafness in women and their partners. We compared the cost-effectiveness of deafness genetic screening with the status quo. The two-step screening (wife then partner) and following treatments and interventions were included in the decision tree model. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the decrease in deaf newborns, healthy newborn births, and cost-utility analysis of pre-pregnancy deafness genetic screening separately. Cost, utility, and probability data used in the three models were collected from a survey combined with literature and expert consultants. A 5% discount rate and a series of one-way sensitivity analyses along with a Monte Carlo simulation were used to test the reliability of this research. Results: Between Jan 1, 2019, and Dec 31, 2021, we recruited 6,200 females and 540 male spouses from community health service centers in Shanghai, Beijing, and Suzhou. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for reducing deaf newborn births was USD 32,656 per case and USD 1,203,926 per case for increasing one healthy newborn birth. This gap exists because of the overall decrease of newborn births. From the perspective of the whole society, deafness genetic screening is not cost-effective for reducing the overall quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in the population. Discussion: Pre-pregnancy genetic testing is effective in decreasing the occurrence of congenital deafness. It is a cost-saving measure when compared with the costs of future medical expenditure and income loss for the affected families. However, such screening and preventive avoidance of pregnancy will decrease the population size and QALY. Only post-screening ART with PGT was shown to increase the birth of healthy newborns. Focusing on key groups such as premature births or consanguineous couples may improve the societal effects of screening.
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.