ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health1998
Costs, effects, and savings of screening for cystic fibrosis gene carriers.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carrier Screening Programs for Cystic Fibrosis, Fragile X Syndrome, Hemoglobinopathies and Thalassemia, and Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2015Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of the CFTR gene-sequencing test for asymptomatic carriers in the Colombian populationBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2020Article
- Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015Review
- Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a school-based Tay-Sachs and cystic fibrosis genetic carrier screening program.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2005Article
- One of these things is not like the others: the idea of precedence in health technology assessment and coverage decisions.The Milbank quarterly · 2005Review
- Attitudes of potential providers towards preconceptional cystic fibrosis carrier screening.Journal of genetic counseling · 2004Article
- Withdrawing low risk women from cervical screening programmes: mathematical modelling study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveEvaluating the costs, effects, and savings of several strategies for cystic fibrosis (CF) gene carrier screening.
designA general model for evaluating prenatal, preconceptional, school, and neonatal carrier screening was constructed. For prenatal and preconceptional screening, two strategies were evaluated: single entry and double entry two step couple screening. Firstly, the Dutch situation was evaluated prospectively; subsequently the results were generalised to other carrier frequencies.
settingProspective simulation model. MAIN
resultsOf all screening strategies, neonatal carrier screening gives most carrier couples an informed choice concerning reproduction. If the parents of carrier newborns would not be tested however, prenatal screening detects most carrier couples. Prenatal and single entry preconceptional screening programmes have a favourable cost-savings balance in the Netherlands under a wide range of assumptions. For double entry preconceptional screening and neonatal screening, high enough values of uptake of screening, prenatal diagnosis, and induced abortion are necessary. School carrier screening does not have a favourable cost-savings balance.
conclusionsIf a CF screening programme is judged to be useful on individual and social grounds, costs considerations are no obstacle for prenatal and single entry preconceptional screening.
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.