ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Prenatal Screening for CMV Primary Infection: A Cost-Utility 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Simplified Workflow for the Prediction of Putative Viral Reads Using NIPT Data.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Universal Cytomegalovirus Screening in the First Trimester of Pregnancy: The Multicentre Observational Cohort Study in the Area of Barcelona (CITEMB Study).BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Observational
- CMV in Pregnancy: A Neglected Area in Maternal and Neonatal Health Policy in LMICs.Sage open pediatricsArticle
- Development, Testing, and Calibration of LINCS: A New Microsimulation Model of Maternal and Fetal Cytomegalovirus Infection in the United States.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCongenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major cause of deafness and neurodevelopmental disability in children. Our objective was to assess the cost utility of first-trimester serological CMV screening, compared to screening of high-risk pregnancies and no serological screening.
designA decision-analytic model was created to compare the cost utility of three strategies from a healthcare sector perspective: universal first-trimester serological screening, screening only of high-risk pregnant women (both including antiviral prophylaxis in cases of primary infection) and serological testing triggered by foetal morphological ultrasound (no CMV serological screening).
settingCanada. POPULATION: Hypothetical population of 80 000 pregnant women.
methodsProbability, expected values and cost estimates were derived from published literature and local hospital and national insurance data.
main outcome measureCost per maternal and infant quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost.
resultsUniversal serological screening was superior to both screening of high-risk women and no screening (utility of -0.42, -0.63 and - 0.87 QALY lost, respectively). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that universal screening was the most cost-effective strategy regardless of the incidence of primary infection, the acceptability of amniocentesis and the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis. In the Monte Carlo analyses, universal serological screening was the most cost-effective option in 96.36% of simulations. Universal serological screening would allow detection of 152 cases of primary maternal CMV infection and would prevent 29 cases of congenital CMV infection annually.
conclusionOur findings support the adoption of a population-based prenatal screening programme for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.
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.