. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jan 30.

Published in final edited form as: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jul;44(1):50–57. doi: 10.1002/uog.13287

Table 5.

Sensitivity analysis comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness for a strategy which compared the probability that a second-trimester obstetric ultrasound (with four-chamber (4C) and outflow views) will be interpreted by a maternal–fetal medicine (MFM) specialist (rather than non-MFM specialist) with a strategy in which all ultrasound images with 4C and outflow views are read by non-MFM specialists (4C + outflow → MFM)

Probability of a screening ultrasound read by an MFM specialist	Effectiveness (cases detected per 1000)^*	ICER compared with 4C + outflow → MFM
20%	2.89	$26 204
40%	4.18	$29 026
60%	4.48	$29 789
80%	4.78	$30 187
100%	5.10	$30 591

Assuming a congenital heart disease incidence of 0.007 per live birth. 4C + outflow, four-chamber and outflow-tract views; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.