ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2026
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive prenatal testing in the English sickle cell and thalassaemia screening pathway.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene Therapy for β-Haemoglobinopathies: From Molecular Correction to Curative Medicine.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Minimally acceptable criteria and required sample size for an accuracy study of non-invasive prenatal testing of sickle cell disease in screen positive women in England: results of a decision tree model.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSickle cell disease (SCD) and thalassaemia are inherited conditions causing chronic anaemia, increased infection risk and multi-organ failure. Standard of care (SoC) prenatal screening involves carrier blood testing for pregnant women and, if positive, carrier blood testing for biological fathers followed by invasive prenatal diagnosis for pregnancies at risk. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) presents an alternative pathway which may reduce diagnostic delays and improve equity for pregnant women when the biological father is unavailable by focusing invasive testing exclusively on fetuses shown to have a high risk of SCD by NIPT. This study compares the outcomes of SoC screening with a proposed NIPT pathway replacing the paternal blood testing stage.
methodsA deterministic decision tree model is used to identify the outcomes of the screening pathways, focusing on the SCD population, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) England. Sensitivity and specificity inputs for NIPT are informed by a separately published minimally acceptable criteria study. Diagnostic outcomes include the number of performed and declined tests and true and false positive/negative diagnoses in each pathway. Economic outcomes include the testing cost of the pathway, the cost per case detected and per accurate diagnosis, and an incremental cost threshold analysis for NIPT. Additional scenario analyses are conducted for the SCD and thalassaemia combined population and for the thalassaemia populations.
resultsWhen considering an overall cohort of 616,573 pregnancies, implementing the NIPT pathway for the screen-positive SCD population results in an incremental cost of £7,584,551. Of 276 prenatal diagnoses (PND) performed in the SoC arm, 76 show a true positive result for SCD, and 2 false positives are identified. In the NIPT arm, there are 6090 NIPTs and 543 PNDs performed, with 213 true positives and 235 false positives identified. The NIPT pathway costs £33,158 more per case detected, and £368 more per accurate diagnosis than SoC; to obtain no incremental cost per case detected versus the SoC, NIPT would need to cost £45.21.
conclusionsThe presented exploratory analysis may gauge the potential cost-effectiveness of introducing NIPT into the screening pathway, pending further research on the technique's diagnostic efficacy.
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.