Costs and Effects of Prenatal Screening Methods for Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects
Objectives: To evaluate prenatal screening methods for Down syndrome and neural tube defects (NTD) with regard to costs per detected case and the number of screening-related miscarriages. Methods: The screening methods compared were risk assessment tests, i.e. serum tests and nuchal translucency mea...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Community genetics 2008-01, Vol.11 (6), p.359-367 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 367 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 359 |
container_title | Community genetics |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Hoogendoorn, Mirjam Evers, Silvia M.A.A. Schielen, Peter C.J.I. vanGenugten, Marianne L.L. deWit, G. Ardine Ament, André J.H.A. |
description | Objectives: To evaluate prenatal screening methods for Down syndrome and neural tube defects (NTD) with regard to costs per detected case and the number of screening-related miscarriages. Methods: The screening methods compared were risk assessment tests, i.e. serum tests and nuchal translucency measurement (NT), and invasive testing through chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis. Costs, the number of cases detected and screening-related miscarriages were calculated using a decision tree model. Results: The costs per detected case of Down syndrome ranged from EUR 98,000 for the first-trimester (serum) double test to EUR 191,000 for invasive testing. If NTD detection was included, the (serum) triple test had the lowest costs, EUR 73,000, per detected case of Down syndrome or NTD. The number of screening-related miscarriages due to invasive diagnostic tests varied from 13 per 100,000 women for the (serum) first- and second-trimester combined test to 914 per 100,000 women for invasive testing. Conclusions: Considering screening for both Down syndrome and NTD favors the triple test in terms of costs per detected case. Compared to invasive testing, risk assessment tests in general substantially lower screening-related miscarriages, which raises the question of whether invasive testing should still be offered in a screening program for Down syndrome. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1159/000133308 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20608014</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26679685</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26679685</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-13b254f889ff37d4b902644a002301546ce5e43aa669d9a79f26113f2062003a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0UtLAzEQB_AgitbHwbtK8CB4qOa9m6PU-oD6APXgacnuTmrrdlOTXcRvb3SrBU-eMjC__5BhENql5IRSqU8JIZRzTtIV1KOCsT5LOV_9qRMtN9BmCNOopE7kOtqgqdIxJHroeeBCE7CpSzy0FopYO4vvPdSmMRV-KDxAPanH-AaaF1cGbJ3H5-69xg8fdendDL6zt9D6yB_bHPA5fM_ZRmvWVAF2Fu8WeroYPg6u-qO7y-vB2ahfCCqbPuU5k8KmqbaWJ6XINWFKCEMI4_G_QhUgQXBjlNKlNom2TFHKLSOKEcIN30JH3dy5d28thCabTUIBVWVqcG3IGNGMcsn-ARVJCRURHv6BU9f6Oi6RMcYp00InER13qPAuBA82m_vJzPiPjJLs6yrZ71WiPVgMbPMZlEu5OEMEex14NX4Mfgl-8vtdexoat-wypRKtUsk_ATBvlhE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223129497</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Costs and Effects of Prenatal Screening Methods for Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Karger Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hoogendoorn, Mirjam ; Evers, Silvia M.A.A. ; Schielen, Peter C.J.I. ; vanGenugten, Marianne L.L. ; deWit, G. Ardine ; Ament, André J.H.A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hoogendoorn, Mirjam ; Evers, Silvia M.A.A. ; Schielen, Peter C.J.I. ; vanGenugten, Marianne L.L. ; deWit, G. Ardine ; Ament, André J.H.A.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives: To evaluate prenatal screening methods for Down syndrome and neural tube defects (NTD) with regard to costs per detected case and the number of screening-related miscarriages. Methods: The screening methods compared were risk assessment tests, i.e. serum tests and nuchal translucency measurement (NT), and invasive testing through chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis. Costs, the number of cases detected and screening-related miscarriages were calculated using a decision tree model. Results: The costs per detected case of Down syndrome ranged from EUR 98,000 for the first-trimester (serum) double test to EUR 191,000 for invasive testing. If NTD detection was included, the (serum) triple test had the lowest costs, EUR 73,000, per detected case of Down syndrome or NTD. The number of screening-related miscarriages due to invasive diagnostic tests varied from 13 per 100,000 women for the (serum) first- and second-trimester combined test to 914 per 100,000 women for invasive testing. Conclusions: Considering screening for both Down syndrome and NTD favors the triple test in terms of costs per detected case. Compared to invasive testing, risk assessment tests in general substantially lower screening-related miscarriages, which raises the question of whether invasive testing should still be offered in a screening program for Down syndrome.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1422-2795</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1662-4246</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1422-2833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1662-8063</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000133308</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18690004</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Abortion, Spontaneous - etiology ; Abortion, Spontaneous - prevention & control ; Adult ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Decision Support Techniques ; Down Syndrome - diagnosis ; Down Syndrome - genetics ; Female ; Genetic Testing - methods ; Humans ; Maternal Age ; Models, Economic ; Neural Tube Defects - diagnosis ; Neural Tube Defects - genetics ; Original Paper ; Pregnancy ; Prenatal Diagnosis - economics ; Prenatal Diagnosis - methods ; Risk Assessment ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Community genetics, 2008-01, Vol.11 (6), p.359-367</ispartof><rights>2008 S. Karger AG</rights><rights>2008 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-13b254f889ff37d4b902644a002301546ce5e43aa669d9a79f26113f2062003a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-13b254f889ff37d4b902644a002301546ce5e43aa669d9a79f26113f2062003a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26679685$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26679685$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,2422,27903,27904,57996,58229</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690004$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hoogendoorn, Mirjam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers, Silvia M.A.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schielen, Peter C.J.I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>vanGenugten, Marianne L.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>deWit, G. Ardine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ament, André J.H.A.</creatorcontrib><title>Costs and Effects of Prenatal Screening Methods for Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects</title><title>Community genetics</title><addtitle>Public Health Genomics</addtitle><description>Objectives: To evaluate prenatal screening methods for Down syndrome and neural tube defects (NTD) with regard to costs per detected case and the number of screening-related miscarriages. Methods: The screening methods compared were risk assessment tests, i.e. serum tests and nuchal translucency measurement (NT), and invasive testing through chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis. Costs, the number of cases detected and screening-related miscarriages were calculated using a decision tree model. Results: The costs per detected case of Down syndrome ranged from EUR 98,000 for the first-trimester (serum) double test to EUR 191,000 for invasive testing. If NTD detection was included, the (serum) triple test had the lowest costs, EUR 73,000, per detected case of Down syndrome or NTD. The number of screening-related miscarriages due to invasive diagnostic tests varied from 13 per 100,000 women for the (serum) first- and second-trimester combined test to 914 per 100,000 women for invasive testing. Conclusions: Considering screening for both Down syndrome and NTD favors the triple test in terms of costs per detected case. Compared to invasive testing, risk assessment tests in general substantially lower screening-related miscarriages, which raises the question of whether invasive testing should still be offered in a screening program for Down syndrome.</description><subject>Abortion, Spontaneous - etiology</subject><subject>Abortion, Spontaneous - prevention & control</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Decision Support Techniques</subject><subject>Down Syndrome - diagnosis</subject><subject>Down Syndrome - genetics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genetic Testing - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Maternal Age</subject><subject>Models, Economic</subject><subject>Neural Tube Defects - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neural Tube Defects - genetics</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Prenatal Diagnosis - economics</subject><subject>Prenatal Diagnosis - methods</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>1422-2795</issn><issn>1662-4246</issn><issn>1422-2833</issn><issn>1662-8063</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0UtLAzEQB_AgitbHwbtK8CB4qOa9m6PU-oD6APXgacnuTmrrdlOTXcRvb3SrBU-eMjC__5BhENql5IRSqU8JIZRzTtIV1KOCsT5LOV_9qRMtN9BmCNOopE7kOtqgqdIxJHroeeBCE7CpSzy0FopYO4vvPdSmMRV-KDxAPanH-AaaF1cGbJ3H5-69xg8fdendDL6zt9D6yB_bHPA5fM_ZRmvWVAF2Fu8WeroYPg6u-qO7y-vB2ahfCCqbPuU5k8KmqbaWJ6XINWFKCEMI4_G_QhUgQXBjlNKlNom2TFHKLSOKEcIN30JH3dy5d28thCabTUIBVWVqcG3IGNGMcsn-ARVJCRURHv6BU9f6Oi6RMcYp00InER13qPAuBA82m_vJzPiPjJLs6yrZ71WiPVgMbPMZlEu5OEMEex14NX4Mfgl-8vtdexoat-wypRKtUsk_ATBvlhE</recordid><startdate>20080101</startdate><enddate>20080101</enddate><creator>Hoogendoorn, Mirjam</creator><creator>Evers, Silvia M.A.A.</creator><creator>Schielen, Peter C.J.I.</creator><creator>vanGenugten, Marianne L.L.</creator><creator>deWit, G. Ardine</creator><creator>Ament, André J.H.A.</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7TK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080101</creationdate><title>Costs and Effects of Prenatal Screening Methods for Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects</title><author>Hoogendoorn, Mirjam ; Evers, Silvia M.A.A. ; Schielen, Peter C.J.I. ; vanGenugten, Marianne L.L. ; deWit, G. Ardine ; Ament, André J.H.A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-13b254f889ff37d4b902644a002301546ce5e43aa669d9a79f26113f2062003a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Abortion, Spontaneous - etiology</topic><topic>Abortion, Spontaneous - prevention & control</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Decision Support Techniques</topic><topic>Down Syndrome - diagnosis</topic><topic>Down Syndrome - genetics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genetic Testing - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Maternal Age</topic><topic>Models, Economic</topic><topic>Neural Tube Defects - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neural Tube Defects - genetics</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Prenatal Diagnosis - economics</topic><topic>Prenatal Diagnosis - methods</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hoogendoorn, Mirjam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers, Silvia M.A.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schielen, Peter C.J.I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>vanGenugten, Marianne L.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>deWit, G. Ardine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ament, André J.H.A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Community genetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hoogendoorn, Mirjam</au><au>Evers, Silvia M.A.A.</au><au>Schielen, Peter C.J.I.</au><au>vanGenugten, Marianne L.L.</au><au>deWit, G. Ardine</au><au>Ament, André J.H.A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Costs and Effects of Prenatal Screening Methods for Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects</atitle><jtitle>Community genetics</jtitle><addtitle>Public Health Genomics</addtitle><date>2008-01-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>359</spage><epage>367</epage><pages>359-367</pages><issn>1422-2795</issn><issn>1662-4246</issn><eissn>1422-2833</eissn><eissn>1662-8063</eissn><abstract>Objectives: To evaluate prenatal screening methods for Down syndrome and neural tube defects (NTD) with regard to costs per detected case and the number of screening-related miscarriages. Methods: The screening methods compared were risk assessment tests, i.e. serum tests and nuchal translucency measurement (NT), and invasive testing through chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis. Costs, the number of cases detected and screening-related miscarriages were calculated using a decision tree model. Results: The costs per detected case of Down syndrome ranged from EUR 98,000 for the first-trimester (serum) double test to EUR 191,000 for invasive testing. If NTD detection was included, the (serum) triple test had the lowest costs, EUR 73,000, per detected case of Down syndrome or NTD. The number of screening-related miscarriages due to invasive diagnostic tests varied from 13 per 100,000 women for the (serum) first- and second-trimester combined test to 914 per 100,000 women for invasive testing. Conclusions: Considering screening for both Down syndrome and NTD favors the triple test in terms of costs per detected case. Compared to invasive testing, risk assessment tests in general substantially lower screening-related miscarriages, which raises the question of whether invasive testing should still be offered in a screening program for Down syndrome.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>18690004</pmid><doi>10.1159/000133308</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1422-2795 |
ispartof | Community genetics, 2008-01, Vol.11 (6), p.359-367 |
issn | 1422-2795 1662-4246 1422-2833 1662-8063 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20608014 |
source | MEDLINE; Jstor Complete Legacy; Karger Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Abortion, Spontaneous - etiology Abortion, Spontaneous - prevention & control Adult Cost-Benefit Analysis Decision Support Techniques Down Syndrome - diagnosis Down Syndrome - genetics Female Genetic Testing - methods Humans Maternal Age Models, Economic Neural Tube Defects - diagnosis Neural Tube Defects - genetics Original Paper Pregnancy Prenatal Diagnosis - economics Prenatal Diagnosis - methods Risk Assessment Sensitivity and Specificity |
title | Costs and Effects of Prenatal Screening Methods for Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T18%3A03%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Costs%20and%20Effects%20of%20Prenatal%20Screening%20Methods%20for%20Down%20Syndrome%20and%20Neural%20Tube%20Defects&rft.jtitle=Community%20genetics&rft.au=Hoogendoorn,%20Mirjam&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=359&rft.epage=367&rft.pages=359-367&rft.issn=1422-2795&rft.eissn=1422-2833&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000133308&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26679685%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223129497&rft_id=info:pmid/18690004&rft_jstor_id=26679685&rfr_iscdi=true |