ReviewAJOG global reports2025
Cost-effectiveness of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test in pregnant patients with suspected pre-eclampsia: a systematic review.
Review in AJOG global reports, 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.
- Correlation Between Immune-Inflammatory Biomarkers During Pregnancy and Postpartum and Adverse Outcomes of Preeclampsia: A Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis.Journal of inflammation research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Pre-eclampsia (PE) affects approximately 2%-4% of pregnancies. Diagnosis involves repeated assessment of pregnant patients with risk factors. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test is shown to have clinical utility in ruling in and out PE among at-risk patients. By excluding the probability of PE, the addition of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test to antenatal care may prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, intensive management, and premature delivery, thus reducing costs. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test globally for pregnant patients at-risk of developing PE. Data sources: PubMed, Medline (OVID), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Web of Science, Econlit, and Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry was systematically searched between 2013-April 2023. Study eligibility criteria: Empirical studies quantifying costs of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test compared to other diagnostic options for pregnant patients with suspected PE. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Eleven studies were included in the systematic review; all were cost analyses and modelled economic evaluations, and most used a health system perspective. Cost data were extracted into tables and indexed to 2022 United States Dollars (USD). An assessment of risk of bias for each study was performed using the Drummond critical appraisal checklist. Results: All studies reported "cost-savings" of the test in antenatal care. Studies varied with costs and assumptions included, therefore a large range of incremental cost savings per patient was reported ($15-$1,881, 2022USD). No Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios or health outcomes including Quality Adjusted Life Years were reported. Conclusions: The included studies demonstrated "cost-savings" of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio test in antenatal care for at-risk pregnant patients. However, this does not account for health outcome differences and long-term health care utilisation and expenditure.
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.