ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of the CFTR gene-sequencing test for asymptomatic carriers in the Colombian populationBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2020Article
- Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
- Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis carriers: an economic evaluation.American journal of human genetics · 1998Article
- Costs, effects, and savings of screening for cystic fibrosis gene carriers.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1998Article
- Influence of five years of antenatal screening on the paediatric cystic fibrosis population in one region.Archives of disease in childhood · 1998Article
- The new genetics. Implications for clinical services in Britain and the United States.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Review
- Methods used in economic evaluations of prenatal screening are disputed.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Genetic tests: a search for economy of scale.American journal of human genetics · 1996Article
- Screening asymptomatic people at high risk for hepatitis C. The case for.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Couple screening would be easier for many centres.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Authors should have used marginal analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Couple screening should be preferred for medical reasons.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Counselors do not have to be genetic nurse specialists.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Realistic cost must be established for genetic counselling in two step screening.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Study might be better described as a cost description of screening.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.