SynthesisJournal of neuromuscular diseases2025
Systematic review for economic evaluations on newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy.
Synthesis in Journal of neuromuscular diseases, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveEvaluate the quality and cost-effectiveness of economic evaluations of newborn screening (NBS) for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).MethodsA systematic review was conducted following Cochrane Handbook guidelines and PRISMA-S checklist. From 146 identified papers, 22 were screened for full-text, and 5 were included. Studies were evaluated for quality of reporting and transparency using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. Data was extracted to inform the review.ResultsFour economic evaluations on NBS for SMA with high reporting quality were identified. Each study employed a cost-utility analysis with similar model structures, using a decision tree for screening and a Markov model for treatment outcomes. They each compared NBS with treatment vs clinical diagnosis (no screening) with treatment. Although treatment protocols of each study varied due to differences in the strategies considered and availability of treatment. All studies included a societal perspective in their analysis and considered a lifetime horizon ranging from 30 months to 100 years. Early NBS with treatment was found to be more cost-effective than late treatment in all studies with ICER values ranging from £-117,541 to $714,000 per QALY. The wide range of ICER values are due to assumptions of long-term outcomes which are still largely unknown.ConclusionNBS with treatment was found to be cost-effective by all studies when compared to no NBS and late treatment. Although there is uncertainty around long term outcomes. Future research should focus on collecting long-term efficacy and safety data and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of pre-symptomatic treatment.
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.