Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42252439›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026

Cost-effectiveness of a real-time screening strategy for bacterial vaginosis using qPCR to prevent preterm birth: results from a randomized prospective multicenter study.

Sandrine Loubiere, Anderson Loundou, Jean-François Cocallemen, Florence Fenollar, Florence Bretelle

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02288832 (Medico-economic Impact of Screening Atopobium Vaginae and Gardnerella Vaginalis in Molecular Biology by "Point-of-care" During Pregnancy), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02288832 phase2 / phase3completednot on this map

Medico-economic Impact of Screening Atopobium Vaginae and Gardnerella Vaginalis in Molecular Biology by "Point-of-care" During Pregnancy

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique Hopitaux De MarseilleRan2015 to 2022Enrolled6,800ConditionsLow Risk of Preterm DeliveryArms-self-collected vaginal samples, zithromax, usual practices
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sandrine LoubiereDepartment of Clinical Research and Innovation, Support Unit for Clinical Research and Economic Evaluation, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille, AP-HM, Marseille, France. sandrine.loubiere@univ-amu.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6715-1223
Anderson LoundouDepartment of Clinical Research and Innovation, Support Unit for Clinical Research and Economic Evaluation, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille, AP-HM, Marseille, France.
Jean-François CocallemenDepartement de recherche clinique, Hopital Nord, Assistance Hôpitaux de Marseille, AP-HM, Marseille, France.
Florence FenollarDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Hopital de la Timone, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Marseille, AP-HM, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France.
Florence BretelleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, La Conception Hospital, Assistance Publique- Hopitaux de Marseille, AP-HM, Marseille, France.

Funding

Direction Générale de l'offre de Soins RCAPHM14-0085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveConventional diagnosis tests for vaginal flora abnormalities in pregnant women are heterogeneous and not easily reproducible, and treatments have been shown insufficient if not combined with screening for recurrence. This paper investigates, alongside a randomised controlled trial, the cost-effectiveness of testing pregnant women for bacterial vaginosis with a point-of-care polymerase chain reaction screening combined with treatment and screening for recurrence (S&T) vs. standard of care.

methodsClinical and costs data of 6,671 pregnant women were collected from the AuTop trial. Administrative databases were used to fulfill resource utilization data. The perspective of the French health insurance was adopted, using national tariffs schedules when existed, such as for qPCR. The time horizon was less than one year, corresponding to the follow-up of the trial. The reduction in preterm birth rate was used as primary outcome and subgroup analyses were performed based on risk level.

resultsCompared to standard of care, S&T reduced the rate of preterm births (3.8% vs. 4.6%) while the mean costs were higher, leading to a ratio of €13,730 per preterm birth averted. For multiparous women at low-risk of preterm birth, S&T was less effective and more costly than standard care. For nulliparous women, S&T appeared to be both more effective and less costly (-€4,663 per preterm birth averted). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed this dominance.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that S&T with a point-of-care molecular test for bacterial vaginosis offers benefits in terms of preterm birth avoided among nulliparous pregnant women and is also expected to result in cost savings in this subgroup compared to standard care. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02288832. 7th October 2014.

Indexed as

Bacterial vaginosisCost-effectiveness analysisMolecular biologyPoint-of-care PCR testPregnancyPreterm birthScreening

Identifiers

PMID42252439
PMCPMC13463965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.