Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8520332›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995

Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis.

H S Cuckle, G A Richardson, T A Sheldon, P Quirke

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Costs, effects, and savings of screening for cystic fibrosis gene carriers.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1998
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Genetic tests: a search for economy of scale.American journal of human genetics · 1996
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

H S CuckleCentre for Reproduction, Growth and Development, Research School of Medicine, University of Leeds, UK.
G A Richardson
T A Sheldon
P Quirke

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the cost effectiveness of different antenatal screening programmes for cystic fibrosis.

settingAntenatal clinics and general practices in the United Kingdom.

designFour components of the screening process were identified: information giving, DNA testing, genetic counselling, and prenatal diagnosis. The component costs were derived from the literature and from a pilot screening study in Yorkshire. The cost of a given screening programme was then obtained by summing the components according to the specific screening strategy adopted (sequential and couple), the proportion of carriers detected by the DNA test, and the uptake of screening. Baseline assumptions were made about the proportion with missing information on carrier status from previous pregnancies (20%), the proportion changing partners between pregnancies (20%), and the uptake of prenatal diagnosis (100%). Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying these assumptions.

main outcome measureCost per affected pregnancy detected.

resultsUnder the baseline assumptions sequential screening costs between pounds 40,000 and pounds 90,000 per affected pregnancy detected, depending on the carrier detection rate and uptake. Couple screening was more expensive, ranging from pounds 46,000 to pounds 104,000. From the sensitivity analysis a 10% change in the assumed proportion with missing information from a previous pregnancy alters the cost by pounds 4000; a 10% change in the proportion with new partners has a similar effect but only for couple screening; and cost will change directly in proportion to the uptake of prenatal diagnosis.

conclusionsWhile economic analysis cannot determine screening policy, the paper provides the NHS with the information on cost effectiveness needed to inform decisions on the introduction of a screening service for cystic fibrosis.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingGenetic ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisCystic FibrosisFemaleGenetic Carrier ScreeningGenetic TestingHumansMalePatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal DiagnosisUnited KingdomGenetics and Reproduction

Identifiers

PMID8520332
PMCPMC2543729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.