Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan 15;202(6):548.e1–548.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.12.005

Table 3.

Base-case cost-effectiveness analysis comparing universal screening to the alternative strategies

Cost
($)		 Incremental
Cost ($)		 Effectiveness
(QALY)		 Incremental
Effectiveness
(QALY)		 Average Cost/
Effectiveness
(C/E)
($/QALY)		 Incremental
C/E
Universal
screening;
tx vag p		 8,325 - - 72.3 - - 115 Dominant
High-risk
screening;
tx vag p		 10,577 2,252 72.0 −0.25 147 Dominated
No
screening;
17-OHP-C
based on
hx		 9,664 1,339 72.1 −0.15 134 Dominated
No
screening
or treating		 11,560 3,235 71.9 −0.36 161 Dominated
*

Tx=treatment, Vag p=vaginal progesterone; 17OHp=17-hydroxyprogesterone acetate; Hx=history