Last edited by Doull
Wednesday, May 13, 2020 | History

2 edition of cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening programmes for Down"s syndrome found in the catalog.

cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening programmes for Down"s syndrome

Phil Shackley

cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening programmes for Down"s syndrome

by Phil Shackley

  • 392 Want to read
  • 33 Currently reading

Published by Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen in Aberdeen .
Written in English


Edition Notes

Statementby Phil Shackley and Ali McGuire.
SeriesDiscussion paper / Health Economics Research Unit -- no.07/92
ContributionsMcGuire, Alistair., University of Aberdeen. Health Economics Research Unit.
The Physical Object
Pagination27p. ;
Number of Pages27
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL21093746M

  Prenatal testing for Down Syndrome is a topic covered in every genetic counselor’s training as it constitutes the main workload of genetic counselors in prenatal settings. Most Western countries nowadays offer some type of testing for Down Syndrome. However, practices vary according to country with regards to what tests are offered, insurance coverage and the legal situation concerning Cited by: Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies. BMJ. ; () (ISSN: ).

Table 1. Clinical performance of non-invasive prenatal test as first-tier test versus that of current screening strategy in the Hospital Authority (assum deliveries/year) Table 2. Cost analysis Clinical performance First-tier non-invasive prenatal test Current screening Detection rate18 99% 93% False-positive rate18 % 5%.   Down syndrome, also called tris is a congenital disorder caused by the presence of an extra 21st ncy is about 1 per live births, and each year about children are born with Down syndrome. Although the clinical presentation of Down syndrome can vary, it is associated with a number of major disorders, including learning disabilities, congential heart defects.

OBJECTIVE: To compare offer and uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in women from different social and ethnic backgrounds. METHOD: A total of randomly selected women in England were sent a survey three months after they had given birth; women responded. Odds ratios (OR) for reported offer and uptake of screening comparing women by area deprivation and ethnicity were Cited by:   Introduction. Since the introduction of antenatal serum screening for Down’s syndrome (DS) more than two decades ago (Cuckle et al., ), several screening approaches have been utilized in routine clinical original method for screening women of advanced maternal age involved invasive testing that was offered to 5% of the population and identified fewer than 30% of fetuses with Cited by:


Share this book
You might also like
peerage of Ireland.

peerage of Ireland.

Adult physical fitness

Adult physical fitness

Robert B. Parkers little white lies

Robert B. Parkers little white lies

chance of politics

chance of politics

Alternative test year methods in public utility rate proceedings

Alternative test year methods in public utility rate proceedings

Ecclesiastes, in the revised version

Ecclesiastes, in the revised version

The Burning Bush

The Burning Bush

Man as microcosm in Tantric Hinduism

Man as microcosm in Tantric Hinduism

Chopper!

Chopper!

The constitution of the Essex Musical Association.

The constitution of the Essex Musical Association.

Auditing computer centres.

Auditing computer centres.

Women in Asia

Women in Asia

The melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya

The melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya

Stress

Stress

A guide to the study of Shakespeares plays

A guide to the study of Shakespeares plays

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening programmes for Down"s syndrome by Phil Shackley Download PDF EPUB FB2

Published evaluations of screening programmes for Down’s syndrome have primarily focused on the detection rates of the different strategies used. 6 Although the detection rate is important for individuals, the cost effectiveness ratio and similar end points of screening strategies are needed for the development of optimal public health strategies.

6 In that respect, only contradictory and Cited by:   That means that a child with Down syndrome who is allowed to live is being seen as a financial liability to the system and that the cost of medical care for that child is being used to justify the cost of screening.

What would be left out of such a cost effectiveness analysis would be the value of the lives of those children with Down syndrome. A 50% decrease in the unit costs of all screening tests would increase the cost effectiveness ratio of all strategies above that of the integrated test (£19 compared with no screening), although the cost effectiveness ratios would be close for nuchal translucency measurement and the first trimester combined by: Objective: To evaluate which Down syndrome screening strategy is the most cost-effective.

Methods: Using decision-analysis modeling, we compared the cost-effectiveness of 9 screening strategies for Down syndrome: 1) no screening, 2) first-trimester nuchal translucency (NT) only, 3) first-trimester combined NT and serum screen, 4) first-trimester serum only, 5) quadruple screen, 6) integrated.

Odibo AO, Stamilio DM, Nelson DB, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol ; Merkatz IR, Nitowsky HM, Macri JN, Johnson WE.

An association between low maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein and fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol ; In the last 15 years, major advancements have been made in Down syndrome (DS) prenatal screening.1, 2 However, there is still no consensus on the optimal strategy that should be offered to pregnant women.

Actually, neither Canada nor the United States has adopted a national strategy3, 4 and screening practices largely differ across North America.5, 6 Matched to worldwide-advised procedures,7 Cited by: Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Am J Obstet Gynecol ; Biggio JR Jr, Morris TC, Owen J, Stringer JS. An outcome analysis of five prenatal screening strategies for trisomy 21 in women younger than 35 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol ; Comparison of different strategies in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: Cost effectiveness analysis of computer Available via license: CC BY-NC Content may be subject to.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. ; (3) (ISSN: ) Odibo AO; Stamilio DM; Nelson DB; Sehdev HM; Macones GA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which Down syndrome screening strategy is the most cost-effective.

Currently, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is only recommended in high‐risk women following conventional D own syndrome (DS) screening, and it has not yet been included in the A ustralian DS screening program.

Aims. To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of different strategies of NIPT for DS screening in comparison with current by: Understanding the methodology and salient issues of cost-effectiveness analysis is critical for researchers, editors, and clinicians to accurately interpret results of the growing body of cost-effectiveness studies in prenatal diagnosis.

KW - Cost-benefit analysis. KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis. KW - Down syndrome. KW - EconomicsCited by:   Hwa, H. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of triple test in second-trimester maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome: an experience from Taiwan with Cited by: 2.

Regardless of the ultimate method of delivery, for national- or state-based prenatal screening programmes, a cost-effectiveness analysis. Prenat Diagn, 33 (), pp. Google Scholar C. Lewis, C. Silcock, L.S. ChittyNon-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome – the views of pregnant women in the UK and their likely by:   A range of options that provide reliable and reproducible results is essential Screening for Down’s syndrome is the most controversial aspect of antenatal care offered to pregnant women, and it is a highly emotionally charged subject.

In a recent editorial, two senior executives of Down Syndrome Education International claimed that current public health policies leading to an estimated Cited by:   A model‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis was performed to estimate prevalence, safety, screening‐program costs and healthcare costs of five different prenatal screening strategies, using a virtual cohort of pregnant women in : A.

Le Bras, L. Salomon, L. Bussières, V. Malan, C. Elie, H. Mahallati, Y. Ville, Y. Ville, M. Vek. Gekas J, Durand A, Bujold E, Vallee M, Forest JC, Rousseau F, Reinharz D. Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of prenatal Down syndrome screening strategies: should the combined test continue to be widely used.

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology ; (2): ee8. Prenatal Down syndrome screening: A cost analysis of different strategies Article in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (6) December with 3 Reads How we measure 'reads'.

Objectives To assess and compare the cost effectiveness of three different strategies for prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome (integrated test, sequential screening, and contingent screenings) and to determine the most useful cut-off values for risk.

Design Computer simulations to study integrated, sequential, and contingent screening strategies with various cut-offs leading to 19 Cited by:   Read "Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of prenatal Down syndrome screening strategies: should the combined test continue to be widely used?, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology" on DeepDyve, the largest online rental service for scholarly research with thousands of academic publications available at your fingertips.

Note what is missing: an answer saying that prenatal treatments do currently exist. This is because there are no prenatal treatments for Down syndrome, nor have there ever been. Prenatal genetic testing for Down syndrome has been around since amniocentesis in. Cite this article. Caruso, T., Westgate, M.

& Holmes, L. Impact of prenatal screening on the birth status of fetuses with Down syndrome at an urban hospital, Cited by: This prenatal Down Syndrome screening, initially referred to as the Practical Approach to Integrated Risk Evaluation for Down Syndrome (PAIRED) serum test in the earlier protocol and now renamed as the Integrated Serum Test (IST), will reduce the number of women.

Applying the dumb cost-effectiveness analysis, then, you could justify screening the population for women to reduce their number. The savings would be apparent: since women cost more, and the prenatal test not only costs less than for Down syndrome, but would apply to about 50% of all pregnancies– think of the savings!