BMJ 1995;311:1372 (18 November)

Letters

Costs were overestimated

EDITOR,--J Fletcher and colleagues' paper on using decision analysis to evaluate screening for Down's syndrome is valuable, but several extra factors need to be considered.1 The authors state that screening causes anxiety but fail to mention the reassurance that it gives to many women. In addition, they based their study on use of the triple test despite the considerable body of evidence showing that a double test is as effective.2 3 Indeed, the national external quality assurance scheme's reports on Down's screening show that a double test is the option favoured by most laboratories. Abandoning the excess assay would save roughly pounds sterling15000 (assuming pounds sterling2 per oestriol assay).

The prospective trial of screening in south Wales (the first routine screening programme for Down's syndrome to be offered for NHS patients), which evaluated all pregnancies referred to the participating hospitals, showed an 85% uptake of screening (those who were not screened . . . [Full text of this article]


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

Relevant Article

Using decision analysis to compare policies for antenatal screening for Down's syndrome
J Fletcher, N R Hicks, J D S Kay, and P A Boyd
BMJ 1995 311: 351-356. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ