Cost-effectiveness and benefits of perinatal health interventions in high-income settings: A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Despite ongoing efforts, perinatal morbidity and mortality persist across all settings, imposing a dual burden of clinical and economic strain. Besides, the fragmented nature of economic evidence on perinatal health interventions hinders the formulation of effective health policies. Our review aims to comprehensively and critically assess the economic evidence for such interventions in high-income countries, where the balance of health outcomes and fiscal prudence is paramount. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a comprehensive search for studies using databases including EconLit (EBSCO), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), and PubMed. Furthermore, we will broaden our search to include Google Scholar and conduct snowballing from the final articles included. The search terms will encompass economic evaluation, perinatal health interventions, morbidity and mortality, and high-income countries. We will include full economic evaluations focusing on cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, and cost-minimisation analyses. We will exclude partial economic evaluations, reports, qualitative studies, conference papers, editorials, and systematic reviews. Date restrictions will limit the review to studies published after 2010 and those in English during the study selection process. We will use the modified Drummond checklist to evaluate the quality of each included study. Our findings will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. A summary will include estimated costs, effectiveness, benefits, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We also plan to conduct a subgroup analysis. To aid comparability, we will standardise all costs to the United States Dollar, adjusting them to their 2022 value using country-specific consumer price index and purchasing power parity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will not involve human participants and requires no ethical approval. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered our record on PROSPERO (registration #: CRD42023432232).

Mouse BAC ends quality assessment and sequence analyses.

A large-scale BAC end-sequencing project at The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) has generated one of the most extensive sets of sequence markers for the mouse genome to date. With a sequencing success rate of >80%, an average read length of 485 bp, and ABI3700 capillary sequencers, we have generated 449,234 nonredundant mouse BAC end sequences (mBESs) with 218 Mb total from 257,318 clones from libraries RPCI-23 and RPCI-24, representing 15x clone coverage, 7% sequence coverage, and a marker every 7 kb across the genome. A total of 191,916 BACs have sequences from both ends providing 12x genome coverage. The average Q20 length is 406 bp and 84% of the bases have phred quality scores > or = 20. RPCI-24 mBESs have more Q20 bases and longer reads on average than RPCI-23 sequences. ABI3700 sequencers and the sample tracking system ensure that > 95% of mBESs are associated with the right clone identifiers. We have found that a significant fraction of mBESs contains L1 repeats and approximately 48% of the clones have both ends with > or = 100 bp contiguous unique Q20 bases. About 3% mBESs match ESTs and > 70% of matches were conserved between the mouse and the human or the rat. Approximately 0.1% mBESs contain STSs. About 0.2% mBESs match human finished sequences and > 70% of these sequences have EST hits. The analyses indicate that our high-quality mouse BAC end sequences will be a valuable resource to the community.