ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Antenatal Screening for Major Structural Anomalies During the First Trimester of Pregnancy: A Decision Model.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dedicated First-Trimester Anomaly Scan in a National Prenatal Screening Program and Timing of Diagnosis: The Prospective IMITAS Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of modifying current antenatal screening by adding first trimester structural anomaly screening to standard of care second trimester anomaly screening.
designHealth economic decision model.
settingNational Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. POPULATION: Pregnant women attending for first trimester antenatal screening.
methodsThe decision model estimated pregnancy outcomes (maternal and foetal) and 20-year costs for current screening practice and for a policy adding a protocol screening for eight major structural anomalies to the current first trimester ultrasound scan. Event probabilities, costs, and outcomes for the model were informed by meta-analyses, published literature, and expert opinion. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Expected numbers of pregnancy outcomes, healthcare costs, and maternal quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), likelihood of cost-effectiveness, and a value of information (VoI) analysis assessing if further research is needed before making a decision about screening.
resultsFirst trimester anomaly screening increased mean per woman costs by £11 (95% CI £1-£29) and maternal QALYs by 0.002065 (95% CI 0.00056-0.00358). The ICER was £5270 per QALY and the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay value for a QALY of £20 000, exceeded 95%. VoI analysis showed further research would be unlikely to represent value for money. The protocol would likely lead to a reduction in infant healthcare costs and QALYs.
conclusionsA protocol to screen for eight major structural anomalies during the first trimester appears to represent value for money for the NHS. The opposing implications for mothers and infants, however, raise complex, challenging, and sensitive issues.
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.