ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
First Trimester Screening for Preterm Preeclampsia in the United Kingdom: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) strategy, compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) strategy, for first-trimester screening for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the United Kingdom (UK).
designCost-effectiveness analysis.
settingUK National Health Service and personal social services perspective. POPULATION: A total of 10 000 simulated patients with singleton pregnancies at 11-13 weeks' gestation, across a lifetime time horizon.
methodsA decision-tree model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis. In the base-case analysis, NICE-recommended screening was compared with FMF screening, using maternal factors, mean arterial pressure (MAP), uterine artery pulsatility index (UtA-PI) and placental growth factor (PlGF). The model assumed that patients identified as high-risk for PE were prescribed 150 mg aspirin daily until 36 weeks' gestation. Scenario analyses varied PE incidence, aspirin adherence and biomarker combinations of FMF strategy components.
main outcome measureIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Dominant ICERs demonstrated lower costs and higher QALYs.
resultsCompared with NICE-recommended screening, the FMF strategy demonstrated a cost-saving of £3191 and QALY gain of 0.92 per 10 000 patients (dominant ICER), with a cost-saving of £199 per preterm PE case avoided. In scenario analyses, the FMF strategy was cost-effective across 3%, 5% and 7% PE incidence, and 75% and 100% aspirin adherence. The base-case FMF strategy (maternal factors + MAP + UtA-PI + PlGF) was the most clinically effective option.
conclusionsThe FMF strategy was more cost-effective versus the NICE strategy for first-trimester preterm PE screening in the UK.
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.