4.7 Article

Is chromosome testing of the second miscarriage cost saving?: A decision analysis of selective versus universal recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.038

关键词

Recurrent pregnancy loss; recurrent miscarriage; chromosome testing; cost analysis; decision analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the cost of selective recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) evaluation, which is defined as RPL evaluation if the second miscarriage is euploid, versus universal RPL evaluation, which is defined as RPL evaluation after the second miscarriage. Traditionally, an RPL evaluation is instituted after the third miscarriage. However, recent studies suggest evaluation after the second miscarriage, which dramatically increases health care costs. Alternatively, chromosome testing of the second miscarriage, to determine whether an RPL evaluation is required, has been proposed. Design: Decision-analytic model. Setting: Academic medical center. Patient(s): Couples experiencing a second miscarriage of less than 10 weeks size. Intervention(s): Selective versus universal RPL evaluation after the second miscarriage. Main Outcome Measure(s): Estimated cost for selective versus universal RPL evaluation. Result(s): The estimated cost of selective RPL evaluation after the second miscarriage was $3,352, versus $4,507 for universal RPL evaluation, resulting in a cost savings of $1,155. With stratification by maternal age groups, selective RPL evaluation resulted in increased cost savings with advancing maternal age groups. Conclusion(s): Selective RPL evaluation, which is based upon chromosome testing of the second miscarriage, is a cost-saving strategy for couples with RPL when compared with universal RPL evaluation. With advancing maternal age groups, the cost savings increased. (Fertil Steril (R) 2012. (C) 2012 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据