ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Remote and self-monitoring for pregnant women at risk of gestational hypertensive disorders: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04031430 (PREMOM II), which is not on this 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.
PREMOM II: Pregnancy Remote Monitoring of Women with Gestational Hypertensive Disorders
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
objectivesGestational hypertensive disorders (GHD) are common pregnancy-related disorders associated with adverse outcomes. Adequate blood pressure monitoring is essential to mitigate these risks. Remote monitoring (RM) and patient self-monitoring (PSM) may provide alternatives to conventional care. However, their cost-effectiveness remains unassessed. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of RM and PSM compared with conventional care for pregnant women at risk of GHD.
methodsThis trial-based economic evaluation used PREMOM II trial data and InterMutualistic Agency cost data. A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective, with results expressed as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Uncertainty was assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsAt the mother-infant dyad level, RM and PSM generated small QALY gains versus conventional care (0.001 and 0.004 QALYs) and higher costs (€337.91 and €898.45). ICERs were €304,046/QALY for RM and €222,483/QALY for PSM, both exceeding the NICE willingness-to-pay reference range of £25,000-£35,000/QALY. In the full incremental analysis, RM was extendedly dominated by PSM. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed substantial uncertainty across comparisons.
conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of RM or PSM compared with conventional care. Consequently, the analysis provides no evidence to justify reimbursement.
trial registrationThe study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04031430 on November 11, 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42814235What 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.