Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Aaron B Caughey

Publications and source records attributed to Aaron B Caughey.

56 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis that compared the first- and second- trimester screening tools for Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was designed that compared four possible screens for Down syndrome: (1) current second- trimester expanded maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein test (AFP), (2) first-trimester nuchal translucency screen, (3) first-trimester serum screen, and (4) combined first-trimester screen with both nuchal translucency screen and a serum screen. Incremental cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated that compared the first-trimester screens with expanded alpha-fetoprotein. RESULTS: The combined screen (nuchal translucency screen + first-trimester serum screen) identified 3,833 Down syndrome fetuses, the nuchal translucency alone identified 3,413 Down syndrome fetuses, and the first- trimester serum screen identified 2,993 Down syndrome fetuses. Each of these screens was an improvement over the current expanded AFP screen, which diagnosed 2,446 Down syndrome fetuses. It would cost $98,381 for each additional Down syndrome case that would be identified by nuchal translucency alone, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.85. The addition of the first-trimester serum screen is still cost-effective compared with expanded AFP; the cost would be $319,934 for each additional Down syndrome fetus who was identified, which would be a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57. CONCLUSION: First-trimester screening for Down syndrome with nuchal translucency screening alone or with serum markers is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the current expanded AFP screen that is being used.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Cost-effectiveness analyses in obstetrics & gynecology. Evaluation of methodologic quality and trends.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate methodologic quality and trends of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. STUDY DESIGN: Ten methodologic principles that should be incorporated in CEAs are used to evaluate CEAs published in Obstetrics & Gynecology from 1966 through 1999. We included articles that were cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses or performed such analyses as part of their studies. RESULTS: Thirty-four CEAs met our inclusion criteria. Seven (20%) analyses adhered to 10, five (15%) to 9, and two (6%) to 8 of the 10 methodologic principles. The mean (+/- SD, median) number of principles to which studies adhered was 5.7 (+/- 3.3, 4). Studies had high compliance (> or = 85%) with principles of research questions, probabilities and effectiveness measures. Studies significantly improved over time in adherence to principles of time frame, perspective, costs, incremental analysis, sensitivity analysis, discounting and total score (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: The CEAs evaluated adhered to approximately half the methodologic principles for performing CEAs but showed significant improvements in quality over time. Understanding the methodology of CEAs is critical for researchers, editors and readers to accurately interpret the results of the growing body of CEA studies.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗