4. Clinical Woolcock J, Grivell R: Noninvasive Australian clinical practice guidelines written by the to journal article Jul 2014 practice prenatal testing. Australian Family Royal Australian College of General Practitioners guidelines Physician 43:432-434, 2014 (RACGP) to assist in making informed decisions about the use of NIPT. The guidelines indicated a high level of accuracy for the detection of Down Syndrome, the risks of insufficient counselling and the prohibitive costs for many women and their families. 5. Retrospective Hui L, Teoh M, da Silva Costa F, et An Australian national audit of 1839 NIPT referrals to journal article 2 Jan 2015 audit al: Clinical implementation of by Australian Association of Obstet- DNA-based aneuploidy rical and Gynaecological Ultrasonologists (AAOGU). screening: perspectives from a The results reported the accuracy of NIPT and the national audit. Ultrasound in effects of its introduction on antenatal care in the Obstetrics & Gynecology 45:10-15, private health sector. 2015 6. Cost-benefit Gyselaers W, Hulstaert F, Neyt M: Belgian study using national data to model the to journal article 27 Oct 2015 study Contingent non-invasive prenatal medical and economic impact of NIPT. The study testing: an opportunity to improve reported that contingent NIPT screening would non-genetic aspects of fetal maintain current live birth prevalence of Down aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn syndrome (LBPD) with an 11% reduction in costs. 35:1347-52, 2015 Lowering the screening threshold or increasing sensitivity could reduce LBPD with minimal increase of overall costs. It concluded that NIPT is both clinically and economically beneficial.
4. Clinical practice guidelines Woolcock J, Grivell R: Noninvasive prenatal testing. Australian Family Physician 43:432-434, 2014 Australian clinical practice guidelines written by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) to assist in making informed decisions about the use of NIPT. The guidelines indicated a high level of accuracy for the detection of Down Syndrome, the risks of insufficient counselling and the prohibitive costs for many women and their families. to journal article Jul 2014 5. Retrospective audit Hui L, Teoh M, da Silva Costa F, et al: Clinical implementation of DNA-based aneuploidy screening: perspectives from a national audit. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 45:10-15, 2015 An Australian national audit of 1839 NIPT referrals by Australian Association of Obstet- rical and Gynaecological Ultrasonologists (AAOGU). The results reported the accuracy of NIPT and the effects of its introduction on antenatal care in the private health sector. to journal article 2 Jan 2015 6. Cost-benefit study Gyselaers W, Hulstaert F, Neyt M: Contingent non-invasive prenatal testing: an opportunity to improve non-genetic aspects of fetal aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn 35:1347-52, 2015 Belgian study using national data to model the medical and economic impact of NIPT. The study reported that contingent NIPT screening would maintain current live birth prevalence of Down syndrome (LBPD) with an 11% reduction in costs. Lowering the screening threshold or increasing sensitivity could reduce LBPD with minimal increase of overall costs. It concluded that NIPT is both clinically and economically beneficial. to journal article 27 Oct 2015
1458-MSAC-Application-(redacted).docx