ArticleVox sanguinis2025
Screening of pregnant women for foetal neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia: A cost-utility analysis.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Specificity of Anti-HPA and Anti-HLA Antibodies in Patients with Suspected Immune-Mediated Platelet Disorders: A Single-Center Study from Serbia.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- The Immunology of Transfusion Medicine: Past, Present, and Future.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Fetal and Neonatal Alloimmune Thrombocytopenia: An Update 2025.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2025Review
- Improving prediction of fetal/neonatal intracranial hemorrhage in HPA-1a alloimmunized pregnancies to guide antenatal management: An observational cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Observational
- Screening of pregnant women for foetal neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia: A cost-utility analysis.Vox sanguinis · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesFoetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (FNAIT) results from maternal platelet-directed antibodies and can result in severe intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) in foetuses and newborns. Screening for human platelet antigen-1a (HPA-1a)-directed antibodies during pregnancy could allow timely intervention with antenatal treatment and prevent ICH. We assessed the cost effectiveness of HPA-1a typing and anti-HPA-1a-screening as part of the prenatal screening programme. MATERIALS AND
methodsDifferent HPA-1a screening scenarios were tested in a decision analysis model and assessed for diagnostic, treatment, intervention and lifetime costs and prevention effects compared to the current situation without screening in the Netherlands. Model parameters were based on available data, literature and expert opinions. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.
resultsAdding screening for anti-HPA-1a antibodies to the current antenatal screening programme of the Netherlands will lead to an additional cost of €4.7 million per year and a gain of 226 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per year, indicating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €20,782 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the uncertainty around the incidence of ICH, lifetime costs of disabled children and the probability of having antibody quantitation >3.0 IU/mL at 20 weeks had the highest effect on the ICER.
conclusionAntenatal anti-HPA-1a screening might be cost effective. To obtain more knowledge and thereby to improve risk stratification, a pilot screening programme is warranted.
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.