FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2256809236> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2256809236 endingPage "101.e7" @default.
• W2256809236 startingPage "101.e1" @default.
• W2256809236 abstract "Background Preterm birth (PTB) is a significant cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Studies have shown that vaginal progesterone therapy for women diagnosed with shortened cervical length can reduce the risk of PTB. However, published cost-effectiveness analyses of vaginal progesterone for short cervix have not considered an appropriate range of clinically important parameters. Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal cervical length screening in women without a history of spontaneous PTB, assuming that all women with shortened cervical length receive progesterone to reduce the likelihood of PTB. Study Design A decision analysis model was developed to compare universal screening and no-screening strategies. The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio of both the strategies, defined as the estimated patient cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) realized by the children. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying progesterone efficacy to prevent PTB. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to address uncertainties in model parameter estimates. Results In our base-case analysis, assuming that progesterone reduces the likelihood of PTB by 11%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for screening was $158,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses show that these results are highly sensitive to the presumed efficacy of progesterone to prevent PTB. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, screening results in cost-saving if progesterone can reduce PTB by 36%. Additionally, for screening to be cost-effective at WTP=$60,000 in three clinical scenarios, progesterone therapy has to reduce PTB by 60%, 34% and 93%. Screening is never cost-saving in the worst-case scenario or when serial ultrasounds are employed, but could be cost-saving with a two-day hospitalization only if progesterone were 64% effective. Conclusion Cervical length screening and treatment with progesterone is a not a dominant, cost-effective strategy unless progesterone is more effective than has been suggested by available data for US women. Until future trials demonstrate greater progesterone efficacy, and effectiveness studies confirm a benefit from screening and treatment, the cost-effectiveness of universal cervical length screening in the United States remains questionable. Preterm birth (PTB) is a significant cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Studies have shown that vaginal progesterone therapy for women diagnosed with shortened cervical length can reduce the risk of PTB. However, published cost-effectiveness analyses of vaginal progesterone for short cervix have not considered an appropriate range of clinically important parameters. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal cervical length screening in women without a history of spontaneous PTB, assuming that all women with shortened cervical length receive progesterone to reduce the likelihood of PTB. A decision analysis model was developed to compare universal screening and no-screening strategies. The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio of both the strategies, defined as the estimated patient cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) realized by the children. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying progesterone efficacy to prevent PTB. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to address uncertainties in model parameter estimates. In our base-case analysis, assuming that progesterone reduces the likelihood of PTB by 11%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for screening was $158,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses show that these results are highly sensitive to the presumed efficacy of progesterone to prevent PTB. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, screening results in cost-saving if progesterone can reduce PTB by 36%. Additionally, for screening to be cost-effective at WTP=$60,000 in three clinical scenarios, progesterone therapy has to reduce PTB by 60%, 34% and 93%. Screening is never cost-saving in the worst-case scenario or when serial ultrasounds are employed, but could be cost-saving with a two-day hospitalization only if progesterone were 64% effective. Cervical length screening and treatment with progesterone is a not a dominant, cost-effective strategy unless progesterone is more effective than has been suggested by available data for US women. Until future trials demonstrate greater progesterone efficacy, and effectiveness studies confirm a benefit from screening and treatment, the cost-effectiveness of universal cervical length screening in the United States remains questionable." @default.
• W2256809236 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2256809236 creator A5011842029 @default.
• W2256809236 creator A5026316133 @default.
• W2256809236 creator A5063348453 @default.
• W2256809236 creator A5071954462 @default.
• W2256809236 date "2016-07-01" @default.
• W2256809236 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2256809236 title "Revisiting the cost-effectiveness of universal cervical length screening: importance of progesterone efficacy" @default.
• W2256809236 cites W111506773 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W1895928049 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W1990326603 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W1991937695 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2002446054 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2003105309 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2006734404 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2018564029 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2018777304 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2067554705 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2093885833 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2103208549 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2110330014 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2122833277 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2144171496 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2157917533 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2170749842 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2172161515 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2186430820 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2330505044 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2331887371 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W2332693636 @default.
• W2256809236 cites W4376595483 @default.
• W2256809236 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.165" @default.
• W2256809236 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26821336" @default.
• W2256809236 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2256809236 type Work @default.
• W2256809236 sameAs 2256809236 @default.
• W2256809236 citedByCount "16" @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362016 @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362017 @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362018 @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362019 @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362020 @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362021 @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362022 @default.
• W2256809236 countsByYear W22568092362023 @default.
• W2256809236 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2256809236 hasAuthorship W2256809236A5011842029 @default.
• W2256809236 hasAuthorship W2256809236A5026316133 @default.
• W2256809236 hasAuthorship W2256809236A5063348453 @default.
• W2256809236 hasAuthorship W2256809236A5071954462 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C2777740455 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C2778220009 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C2780647465 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C3019080777 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C515549039 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C112930515 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C121608353 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C126322002 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C131872663 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C2777740455 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C2778220009 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C2780647465 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C29456083 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C3019080777 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C515549039 @default.
• W2256809236 hasConceptScore W2256809236C71924100 @default.
• W2256809236 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2256809236 hasLocation W22568092361 @default.
• W2256809236 hasLocation W22568092362 @default.
• W2256809236 hasOpenAccess W2256809236 @default.
• W2256809236 hasPrimaryLocation W22568092361 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W1512398135 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2001644930 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2057711323 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2107924944 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2327427768 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2396325782 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2412966068 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2598700445 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W4386634807 @default.
• W2256809236 hasRelatedWork W2408016099 @default.
• W2256809236 hasVolume "215" @default.
• W2256809236 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2256809236 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2256809236 magId "2256809236" @default.
• W2256809236 workType "article" @default.