Papers

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

^a Department of Public Health and Health Policy, Oxfordshire Health Authority, Oxford OX3 7LG, ^b Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, ^c Maternity Department, Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU

Correspondence to: Dr Hicks.

Abstract

Objective: To compare different screening policies for Down's syndrome across a broad range of outcomes, using decision analysis, with particular reference to the role of maternal serum testing.
Design: A decision tree was used to combine data from local sources and the medical literature to predict the likely frequency of several outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the conclusions drawn.
Setting: Oxfordshire Health Authority.
Main outcome measures: Live births with and without Down's syndrome; miscarriages with Down's syndrome; cases of Down's syndrome detected antenatally; amniocenteses performed (and associated miscarriages); direct NHS screening costs; number of women offered screening.
Results: Screening policies for Down's syndrome that include serum testing can produce better population outcomes than programmes that do not. Each option for screening for Down's syndrome that we considered had significant drawbacks. In Oxfordshire, offering serum testing to women of all ages would prevent the birth of approximately one more baby with Down's syndrome per year than would a policy of screening for women aged 30 years or more. The cost of preventing this one extra Down's birth would be one or two normal babies lost after amniocentesis, 4500 blood tests for young women (with the associated anxiety and counselling), approximately 200 false positive serum test results and amniocenteses (with the associated anxiety and distress), and £90000 for the extra tests, counselling, and amniocenteses. Opinions are divided as to which policy is the better option for the population.
Conclusions: Decision analysis is a useful tool for determining the likely consequences of different policy options across a broad range of outcomes. This focuses debate and decision making on outcomes of care, which in turn makes it clear that the choice of screening programme for Down's syndrome depends on the relative importance ascribed to the different outcomes. If individuals' values vary widely it may be impossible to find one screening policy that meets the needs of all pregnant women.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Decision analysis and screening for Down's syndrome

David Murray and Barry Tennison
BMJ 1995 311: 1371. [Extract] [Full Text]

Not using age specific values invalidates study

Kevin Spencer
BMJ 1995 311: 1371. [Extract] [Full Text]

Costs were overestimated

T M Reynolds
BMJ 1995 311: 1372. [Extract] [Full Text]

Testing should be in all women

Nicholas J Wald, Anne Kennard, Hilary Watt, James E Haddow, Glenn E Palomaki, George J Knight, and Jacob A Canick
BMJ 1995 311: 1372. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Lilford, R., Girling, A., Braunholtz, D., Gillett, W., Gordon, J., Brown, C. A., Stevens, A. (2007). Cost-Utility Analysis When Not Everyone Wants the Treatment: Modeling Split-Choice Bias. Med Decis Making 27: 21-26 [Abstract]  
• Rozenberg, P., Malagrida, L., Cuckle, H., Durand-Zaleski, I., Nisand, I., Audibert, F., Benattar, C., Tribalat, S., Cartron, M., Lemarie, P., Stoessel, J., Capolagui, P., Janse-Marec, J., Barbier, D., Allouch, C., Perdu, M., Roberto, A., Lahna, Z., Giudicelli, Y., Ville, Y. (2002). Down's syndrome screening with nuchal translucency at 12+0-14+0 weeks and maternal serum markers at 14+1-17+0 weeks: a prospective study. Hum Reprod 17: 1093-1098 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Alderson, P. (2001). Prenatal Screening, Ethics and Down's Syndrome: a literature review. Nurs Ethics 8: 360-374 [Abstract]  
• Mol, B. W.J., van der Veen, F., Bossuyt, P. M.M. (1999). Implementation of probabilistic decision rules improves the predictive values of algorithms in the diagnostic management of ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod 14: 2855-2862 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Barratt, A., Irwig, L., Glasziou, P., Cumming, R. G., Raffle, A., Hicks, N., Gray, J. A. M., Guyatt, G. H., for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, (1999). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XVII. How to Use Guidelines and Recommendations About Screening. JAMA 281: 2029-2034 [Full text]  
• Wyllie, J. P, Madar, R J., Wright, M., Burn, J., Wren, C. (1997). Strategies for antenatal detection of Down's syndrome. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 76: 26F-30 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Reynolds, T M (1995). Costs were overestimated. BMJ 311: 1372-1372 [Full text]  
• Murray, D., Tennison, B. (1995). Decision analysis and screening for Down's syndrome. BMJ 311: 1371c-1371 [Full text]  
• Spencer, K. (1995). Not using age specific values invalidates study. BMJ 311: 1371d-1371 [Full text]  
• Wald, N. J, Kennard, A., Watt, H., Haddow, J. E, Palomaki, G. E, Knight, G. J, Canick, J. A (1995). Testing should be in all women. BMJ 311: 1372a-1372 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Do we know if women 35 and over prefer pregnancy termination?

Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim
bmj.com, 1 Dec 1999 [Full text]