Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribers receive full online access to your subscription and archive of back issues up to and including 2002.
Content published before 2002 is available via pay-per-view purchase only.
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinics in Laboratory MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Increased spending on health care: how much can we afford?.Health Aff. 2003; 22: 15-25
- Statistical abstract of the United States.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC2009
- Health spending projections for 2001–2011: the latest outlook.Health Aff. 2002; 21: 207-218
- The costs and benefits of a public option in health care reform: an economic analysis. Policy brief.Berkeley Center on Health, Economics, and Security, Berkeley (CA)2009
- Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices.N Engl J Med. 1979; 296: 716-721
- Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices.JAMA. 1989; 262: 2879-2886
- Is technological change in medicine worth it?.Health Aff. 2001; 20: 11-29
- Economic evaluation of prenatal diagnosis: a methodological review.Prenat Diagn. 1996; 16: 389-395
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening and diagnosis: methodologic issues.Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005; 60: 11-18
- Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.Oxford University Press, New York1996
- Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal.J Health Econ. 1986; 5: 1-30
- A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs.Health Serv Res. 1972; 7: 118-133
- Russell LB for the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.JAMA. 1996; 276: 1253-1258
- A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis.Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113: 147-154
- Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.BMJ. 1996; 313: 275-283
- Cost-effectiveness analyses in obstetrics & gynecology. Evaluation of methodologic quality and trends.J Reprod Med. 2002; 47: 631-639
- Economic analyses in obstetrics and gynecology: a methodologic evaluation of the literature.Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 472-478
- Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening: a cost-benefit analysis.Am J Public Health. 1979; 69: 566-573
- Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold.Lancet. 2004; 363: 276-282
- Chromosome analysis of human amniotic fluid cells.Lancet. 1966; 1: 383-385
- Who should be offered prenatal diagnosis? The 35-year-old question.Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 160-163
- Antenatal diagnosis: report of a consensus development conference.US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (MD)1979
- Preventing the birth of infants with Down's syndrome: a cost-benefit analysis.Br Med J. 1976; 1: 753-756
- First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18.N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 1405-1413
- An outcomes analysis of five prenatal screening strategies for trisomy 21 in women younger than 35 years.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190: 721-729
- Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 1239-1245
- The impact of the use of echogenic intracardiac focus as a screen for Down syndrome in women under the age of 35.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 85: 1021-1027
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome.Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 562-568
- First- and second-trimester evaluation of risk for Down syndrome.Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 10-17
- A comparison of first trimester screening, second trimester screening, and the combination of both for evaluation of risk for Down syndrome.N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 2001-2011
- Comparison of different strategies in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: cost effectiveness analysis of computer simulation.BMJ. 2009; 338: b138
- Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most.Prenat Diagn. 1999; 19: 711-716
- Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences.Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96: 511-516
- Economic evaluation of prenatal carrier screening for fragile X syndrome.J Matern Fetal Med. 1999; 8: 168-172
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal population-based fragile X carrier screening.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 189: S117
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
