ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Cost Comparison of Repeat Placental Growth Factor-Based Testing in Women with Suspected Preterm Pre-eclampsia, Compared to Usual Care: The PARROT-2 Trial.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim was to evaluate health resource use and cost, and conduct a cost comparison of repeat placental growth factor (PlGF)-based testing for suspected pre-eclampsia, compared with usual care.
methodsThis was a health economic evaluation in women participating in the PARROT-2 trial of repeat revealed PlGF-based testing, compared to usual care, for suspected preterm pre-eclampsia in 22 maternity units in England, Scotland, and Wales, (ISRCTN85912420, 25/11/2019). We conducted a cost comparison analysis, describing health resource use and associated cost per woman, infant, and mother-infant dyad according to randomised allocation to repeat revealed PlGF-based testing or usual care with repeat concealed testing. Additional analysis was stratified according to the initial PlGF-based test result (normal, abnormal, or very abnormal). A post-hoc, within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was also conducted.
resultsBetween December 17, 2019, and September 30, 2022, 1253 participants were randomised. Costs per woman, infant, or mother-infant dyad were similar between the repeat revealed testing group and the group receiving usual care with repeat concealed testing. In the revealed group compared to the usual care group, there were significantly greater costs associated with neonatal admissions for special care (mean difference £1169 95% confidence interval 398-1939), but not neonatal intensive care or high-dependency care. Costs correlated with the initial PlGF-based test result, with the highest costs per mother-infant dyad in the group with a very abnormal initial test result (£38,284 [standard deviation {SD} 35,997]) and lowest costs in the group with a normal initial test result (£13,156 [SD 9568]). Repeat testing was unlikely to be cost-effective, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated low probability for a range of decision thresholds.
conclusionThere is no evidence of an overall significant difference in cost associated with a policy of universal, routine repeat testing, compared to usual care, in women receiving an initial PlGF-based test for suspected pre-eclampsia.
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.