ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative performance and health economic analysis of prenatal screening for down syndrome in Fujian province, China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Evidence for Prenatal Down Syndrome Screening: An Umbrella Review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
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
To compare the performance of first-trimester serum screening (FTSS) and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting fetal chromosomal aneuploidies trisomy 21 (T21) and trisomy 18 (T18), and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical feasibility of four screening strategies for the prevention of Down syndrome (DS) from a health economics perspective. This retrospective study included 33,559 pregnant women who underwent DS screening at Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital between February 25, 2022, and December 29, 2023. Participants were divided into an FTSS group (n = 23,136) and an NIPT group (n = 10,423) based on the type of screening received. All subjects were followed for eight months postpartum to collect pregnancy outcome data. Screening performance was compared between the two groups based on prenatal diagnostic results. Subsequently, four screening strategies were constructed and assessed using cost-effectiveness analysis and NIPT price sensitivity analysis to determine their health-economic value. A comparison of screening performance between the two groups showed that NIPT had significantly higher specificity (99.96%) and positive predictive value (55.56%) than FTSS (specificity: 92.93%, positive predictive value: 0.91%). Meanwhile, the false-positive rate of NIPT (0.04%) was notably lower than that of FTSS (7.07%). Cost-effectiveness analysis of the four strategies indicated that strategy 2 was the most cost-effective, with a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of 1,252,400 CNY and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -3,626,700 CNY, achieving improved screening outcomes while reducing costs. Sensitivity analysis further demonstrated that even when the screening scale expanded under strategy 4 or when NIPT prices fluctuated between 700 and 2,100 CNY, strategy 2 maintained the lowest CER. NIPT is superior to FTSS in terms of screening efficacy. Based on a health economic evaluation, among the four strategies, Strategy 2 (using NIPT as conditional screening) offers the best cost-effectiveness while improving detection efficacy, making it the optimal strategy recommended in this study.
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.