ArticleFetal diagnosis and therapy2026
Balancing How Much We Want to Know with What We Are Willing to Pay: A Comparative Cost Analysis of Prenatal Cytogenetic Testing and Screening Strategies.
Article in Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Invasive prenatal diagnostic tests have higher detection rates than screening tests. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has higher detection than combined testing (CT). We estimated the cost per cytogenetic abnormality diagnosed for prenatal testing and screening methods (US data).
methodsWe compared seven strategies: universal diagnosis with microarray and karyotype; cfDNA screening with four methodologies: Digital Analysis of Selected Regions (DANSR), massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS), single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and rolling circle amplification (RCA); and CT. Five abnormality groupings were considered: common autosomal trisomies (21,18,13), sex chromosome aneusomies, triploidy, clinically significant sub-chromosome changes, and copy number variants. Prevalence, detection, false-positive rates, and unit costs (literature) were obtained. The detection rate was aggregated across groups as were costs, including diagnostic tests following positive screening results.
resultsAll six high detection strategies had greater cost per abnormality diagnosed than CT (USD 26,100). The costliest was cfDNA using MPSS (USD 96,100), followed by universal karyotyping (USD 95,900), cfDNA using SNPs, DANSR (USD 94,800-USD 92,800), universal microarray (USD 56,600), and cfDNA with RCA (USD 32,200). The additional cost per extra abnormality diagnosed compared to CT ("marginal" cost) was the lowest for cfDNA with RCA (USD 45,000); others were considerably higher (USD 59,400-USD 160,700).
conclusionPreferred prenatal strategies vary among stakeholders. However, as monopolies (large systems and Accountable Care Organizations) now control the majority of American healthcare policy decisions, the lowest cost cfDNA screening will likely prevail in actual practice. </p>.
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.