ArticleBMJ public health2024
Economic evaluation of newborn deafness gene screening as a public health intervention in China: a modelling study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. 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.
- 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While global newborn hearing screening programmes (NHSP) are far from the optimal level, the combined hearing and genetic screening has emerged as an innovative approach of early healthcare interventions. There is a clear need for economic evaluation to establish whether newborn deafness gene screening (NDGS), currently mandated by many cities in China, is a good investment. Methods: A decision-tree model was constructed to simulate a hypothetical 10-million Chinese newborn cohort over a lifetime with three strategies: (1) no screening, (2) NHSP (standard screening) and (3) NHSP+NDGS (combined screening). The presence of permanent congenital hearing loss (PCHL) and genetic mutation were assigned at birth and held constant for all strategies. Input parameters were obtained from the Cohort of Deafness-gene Screening study and literature review. The government contract price for genetic screening was US$77/child. Outcomes of interest included the number of early diagnosed PCHL, prelingual deafness, total deafness, special education referral, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Results: Both standard and combined screening strategies were more effective and more costly than 'no screening'. Compared with standard screening, combined screening led to 9112 (28.0%) more PCHL cases early detected, avoiding 4071 (66.9%) prelingual deafness cases and 3977 (15.6%) special education referrals. The ICER and BCR for combined screening were US$ 4995/disability-adjusted life-year (95% uncertainty interval, 2963 to 9265) and 1.78 (1.19 to 2.39), from healthcare sector perspective. Combined screening would dominate standard screening from societal perspective. Moreover, it remained cost-effective even in pessimistic scenarios. Conclusions: Our findings have particular implication for the 'scale-up' of genetic screening at the national level in China. The model may serve as a feasible example for hearing screening strategies in other countries, as well as genetic screening for other diseases.
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.