Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2022 Jun 1;59(6):778–792. doi: 10.1002/uog.24884

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

PMC Copyright notice

UOG-24884-FIG-0002-b — Cost‐effectiveness plane showing the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) per 100 000 women in the lifetime horizon for all screening strategies with cervical length (CL) measurement at 18 + 0 to 20 + 6 weeks (Cx1) (a) and at 21 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks (Cx2) (b). ‘No screening’ strategy is used as reference. (a) At Cx1, ‘Nullipara screening’ CL29 dominates all other strategies. The ICER for ‘Low‐risk‐based screening’ CL29 vs ‘Nullipara screening’ CL29 is 11 800 US dollars (USD) per gained quality‐adjusted life year (QALY). (b) At Cx2, not dominated strategies are ‘No screening, treat high‐risk group’, ‘Nullipara screening’ CL27 and ‘Low‐risk‐based screening’ CL27. The ICER for ‘Nullipara screening’ CL27 vs ‘No screening, treat high‐risk group’ is 37 500 USD per gained QALY. The ICER for ‘Low‐risk‐based screening’ CL27 compared with ‘Nullipara screening’ CL27 is 53 300 USD per gained QALY. , ‘No screening’ strategy; , base‐case results (CL25); , all other results (CL20, CL27, CL29). CL20, high risk of spontaneous preterm delivery (sPTD) indicated by CL ≤ 20 mm; CL25, high risk of sPTD indicated by CL ≤ 25 mm; CL27, high risk of sPTD indicated by CL ≤ 27 mm; CL29, high risk of sPTD indicated by CL ≤ 29 mm.

Inline graphic — Cost‐effectiveness plane showing the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) per 100 000 women in the lifetime horizon for all screening strategies with cervical length (CL) measurement at 18 + 0 to 20 + 6 weeks (Cx1) (a) and at 21 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks (Cx2) (b). ‘No screening’ strategy is used as reference. (a) At Cx1, ‘Nullipara screening’ CL29 dominates all other strategies. The ICER for ‘Low‐risk‐based screening’ CL29 vs ‘Nullipara screening’ CL29 is 11 800 US dollars (USD) per gained quality‐adjusted life year (QALY). (b) At Cx2, not dominated strategies are ‘No screening, treat high‐risk group’, ‘Nullipara screening’ CL27 and ‘Low‐risk‐based screening’ CL27. The ICER for ‘Nullipara screening’ CL27 vs ‘No screening, treat high‐risk group’ is 37 500 USD per gained QALY. The ICER for ‘Low‐risk‐based screening’ CL27 compared with ‘Nullipara screening’ CL27 is 53 300 USD per gained QALY. , ‘No screening’ strategy; , base‐case results (CL25); , all other results (CL20, CL27, CL29). CL20, high risk of spontaneous preterm delivery (sPTD) indicated by CL ≤ 20 mm; CL25, high risk of sPTD indicated by CL ≤ 25 mm; CL27, high risk of sPTD indicated by CL ≤ 27 mm; CL29, high risk of sPTD indicated by CL ≤ 29 mm.