Literature DB >> 7688977

An economic appraisal of alternative pre-natal screening programmes for Down's syndrome.

P Shackley1, A McGuire, P A Boyd, J Dennis, M Fitchett, J Kay, M Roche, P Wood.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate economically a screening programme within the Oxford Regional Health Authority for Down's syndrome, based on maternal serum alpha fetoprotein, unconjugated oestriol and human chorionic gonadotrophin as well as maternal age (the triple test) against maternal age alone. The design of the study involved cost-effectiveness analysis of the triple test relative to the maternal age screening programme, and the main outcome measure was the cost per Down's birth avoided. It was found that the triple test is more cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions concerning detection rates and procedure costs. Indirect costs are important in considering the cost-effectiveness of the screening programmes. The most efficient detection rate is around 58 per cent for which the cost per Down's birth avoided is approximately 29,600 pounds if only direct costs are evaluated, 20,100 pounds if all NHS costs are considered and -49,800 pounds if all resource consequences are analysed. It may be concluded that screening for Down's syndrome using the triple test is cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions concerning detection rate and procedure costs. If all resource costs are considered, the programme is highly cost-effective in comparison with other health care interventions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 7688977

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Health Med        ISSN: 0957-4832


  9 in total

1.  Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies.

Authors:  R E Gilbert; C Augood; R Gupta; A E Ades; S Logan; M Sculpher; J H van Der Meulen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-08-25

2.  Using decision analysis to compare policies for antenatal screening for Down's syndrome.

Authors:  J Fletcher; N R Hicks; J D Kay; P A Boyd
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-08-05

3.  Trade-offs in prenatal detection of Down syndrome.

Authors:  M Serra-Prat; P Gallo; A J Jovell; M Aymerich; M D Estrada
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Decision analysis and screening for Down's syndrome. Estimate of uptake of amniocentesis is overoptimistic.

Authors:  D Murray; B Tennison
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-11-18

5.  Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  H S Cuckle; G A Richardson; T A Sheldon; P Quirke
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-12-02

6.  Women's voices: prenatal diagnosis and care for the disabled.

Authors:  A Brookes
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2001

7.  Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 1. Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Down syndrome. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.

Authors:  P T Dick
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Bone mineral density measurements: are they worth while?

Authors:  D J Torgerson; C Donaldson; D M Reid
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 18.000

9.  Cost-effectiveness analysis for triple markers serum screening for Down's syndrome in Thai setting.

Authors:  Viroj Wiwanitkit
Journal:  Indian J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.