Antenatal ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities: A systematic review of studies of cost and cost effectiveness

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 109, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 44-56

  Roberts, Tracy ^a   Henderson, Jane ^b   Mugford, Miranda ^c   Bricker, Leanne ^d   Neilson, James ^d   Garcia, Jo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EUROPE; FETUS; FETUS DISEASE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; PRENATAL CARE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; UNITED STATES; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; ECHOGRAPHY; HEALTH PROGRAM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; COST; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ABNORMALITIES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 0036358084     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.00223.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Abnormalities: Report of the RCOG Working Party. 1997;RCOG Press, London.
2. Roberts T., Mugford M., Piercy J. Choosing options for ultrasound screening in pregnancy and comparing cost effectiveness: a decision analysis approach. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 105:1998;960-970.
3. Bricker L, Garcia J et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. HTA Report. In Press.
4. Clement S., Wilson J., Sikorski J. Women's experiences of antenatal ultrasound scans. Clement S. Psychological Perspectives on Pregnancy and Childbirth. 1998;7-24 Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.
5. Neilson JP. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2000. Oxford. Update Software.
6. Mugford M. Using systematic reviews for economic evaluation. Systematic Reviews. In Press.
7. Mugford M. How does the method of cost estimation affect the assessment of cost-effectiveness in health care? [Dphil thesis]. Oxford University, 1996.
8. Roberts T, Henderson J, Petrou S, Martin M. The quality of economic evidence available to decision makers. [abstract]. 2nd International Conference on Priority Setting; October, 1998, London.
9. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO (on behalf of the Economic Evaluation Working Party). Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:275-283.
10. Leivo T, Tuominen R., Saari Kemppainen A., Ylostalo P., Karjalainen O, Heinonen O.P. Cost-effectiveness of one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 7:1996;309-314.
11. Long G., Sprigg A. A comparative study of routine versus selective fetal anomaly ultrasound scanning. J Med Screen. 5:1998;6-10.
12. DeVore G.R. The routine antenatal diagnostic imaging with ultrasound study: another perspective. Obstet Gynecol. 84:1994;622-626.
13. DeVore G.R. Influence of prenatal diagnosis on congenital heart defects. Ann NY Acad Sci. 847:1998;46-52.
14. Vintzileos A.M., Ananth C.V., Fisher A.J., Smulian J.C. An economic evaluation of first-trimester genetic sonography for prenatal detection of Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 91:1998;535-539.
15. Ganiats T.G., Halverson A.L., Bogart M.H. Incremental cost-effectiveness of incorporating oestriol evaluation in Down syndrome screening programmes. Prenat Diagn. 14:1994;527-535.
16. Wald N.J., Kennard A., Hackshaw A., McGuire A. Antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: safety and cost-effectiveness of serum screening. Health Technology Assessment. 2:1998;75-84.
17. Nadel A.S., Norton M.E., Wilkins Haug L. Cost-effectiveness of strategies used in the evaluation of pregnancies complicated by elevated maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. Obstet Gynecol. 89:1997;660-665.
18. LeFevre M.L., Bain R.P., Ewigman BGet al. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: impact on maternal management and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 169:1993;483-489.
19. Ewigman B.G., Crane J.P., Frigoletto FDet al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med. 329:1993;821-827.
20. Backe B., Buhaug H. Societal costs of antenatal and obstetrical care. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 73:1994;688-694.
21. Sadovnick A.D., Baird P.A. Maternal age-specific costs of detecting Down syndrome and neural tube defects. Can J Pub Health. 73:1982;248-250.
22. Bolling R.O., Schipul A.H. Jr., Barnhill D.R., Chaney S., Beam T.L. Prevalence of neural tube defects in United States Army treatment facilities, 1975-1985; cost analysis of routine screening. Mil Med. 153:1988;293-295.
23. Geerts L.T., Brand E.J., Theron G.B. Routine obstetric ultrasound examinations in South Africa: cost and effect on perinatal outcome: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 103:1996;501-507.
24. Hahn R.G., Ho S., Roi L.D., Bugarin Viera M., Davies T.C., Rodney W.M. Cost-effectiveness of office obstetrical ultrasound in family practice: preliminary considerations. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1:1988;33-38.
25. Kay B.J., Share D.A., Jones K., Smith M., Garcia D., Yeo S.A. Process, costs, and outcomes of community-based prenatal care for adolescents. Med Care. 29:1991;531-542.
26. Rosenblatt R.A., Dawson A.J., Larson EHet al. A comparison of the investment in hospital-based obstetrical ultrasound in Wales and Washington state. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 11:1995;571-584.
27. Rouse D.J., Owen J., Goldenberg R.L., Cliver S.P. The effectiveness and costs of elective caesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA. 276:1996;1480-1486.
28. Waitzman N.J., Romano P.S. Reduced costs of congenital anomalies from fetal ultrasound: are they sufficient to justify routine screening in the United States? Ann NY Acad Sci. 847:1998;141-153.
29. Bakketeig L.S., Eik Nes S.H., Jacobsen Get al. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet. 2:1984;207-211.
30. Copel J.A., Tan A.S., Kleinman C.S. Does a prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease alter short term outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 10:1997;237-241.
31. Haley J., Tuffnell D.J., Johnson N. Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus umbilical artery Doppler in the management of small for gestational age fetuses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 104:1997;431-435.
32. Nienhuis S.J., Vles J.S.H., Gerver W.J.M., Hoogland H.J. Doppler ultrasonography in suspected intrauterine growth retardation: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 9:1997;6-13.
33. Omtzigt AMWJ, Reuwer PJHM, Bruinse H.W. A randomized controlled trial on the clinical value of umbilical Doppler velocimetry in antenatal care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 170:1994;625-634.
34. Rustico M.A., Benettoni A., D'Ottavio Get al. Fetal heart screening in low risk pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 6:1995;313-319.