Cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial

T. Leivo, Risto Tuominen, A. Saari-Kemppainen, Pekka Ylöstalo, O. Karjalainen, Olli P. Heinonen
{"title":"Cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial","authors":"T. Leivo, Risto Tuominen, A. Saari-Kemppainen, Pekka Ylöstalo, O. Karjalainen, Olli P. Heinonen","doi":"10.1097/00006254-199701000-00006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this study was to evaluate, in a controlled clinical trial, the costs of standardized one‐stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy in relation to the reduction in perinatal mortality. A trial population of 9310 pregnant women was randomly allocated to ultrasound screening or a control group. Two obstetric hospitals and 64 recruiting antenatal health centers were involved. The costs included actually realized costs, i.e. positive costs, and gains, i.e. negative costs, resulting from lower health‐care use. Cost‐accounting data were obtained by a questionnaire to all attenders and measurements at the screening, and later complemented by a questionnaire to a random sample of 534 screened women. Internal accounting and other hospital data, national statistics and health‐market sources were also used. The actually realized cost of each avoided perinatal death was FIM 84 378 ($21 938), while the net over‐all estimate combining all positive and negative costs showed a cost saving of FIM 65 680 ($17 077). The total positive unit cost of ultrasound screening was FIM 393 ($102). Longer ultrasound examination time and more numerous advanced examinations were rewarded by clearly fewer perinatal deaths and a better cost‐effectiveness ratio. One‐stage second‐trimester ultrasound screening is cost‐effective when all significant costs and effects are taken into account. Copyright © 1996 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology","PeriodicalId":23453,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"56","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-199701000-00006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate, in a controlled clinical trial, the costs of standardized one‐stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy in relation to the reduction in perinatal mortality. A trial population of 9310 pregnant women was randomly allocated to ultrasound screening or a control group. Two obstetric hospitals and 64 recruiting antenatal health centers were involved. The costs included actually realized costs, i.e. positive costs, and gains, i.e. negative costs, resulting from lower health‐care use. Cost‐accounting data were obtained by a questionnaire to all attenders and measurements at the screening, and later complemented by a questionnaire to a random sample of 534 screened women. Internal accounting and other hospital data, national statistics and health‐market sources were also used. The actually realized cost of each avoided perinatal death was FIM 84 378 ($21 938), while the net over‐all estimate combining all positive and negative costs showed a cost saving of FIM 65 680 ($17 077). The total positive unit cost of ultrasound screening was FIM 393 ($102). Longer ultrasound examination time and more numerous advanced examinations were rewarded by clearly fewer perinatal deaths and a better cost‐effectiveness ratio. One‐stage second‐trimester ultrasound screening is cost‐effective when all significant costs and effects are taken into account. Copyright © 1996 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
妊娠期一期超声筛查的成本-效果:赫尔辛基超声试验报告
本研究的目的是在一项对照临床试验中评估标准化孕期一期超声筛查的成本与降低围产期死亡率的关系。试验人群为9310名孕妇,随机分为超声筛查组和对照组。参与了两家产科医院和64家产前保健中心。成本包括实际实现成本,即积极成本和收益,即因医疗保健使用减少而产生的消极成本。成本核算数据是通过对所有参与者的问卷调查和筛查时的测量获得的,然后通过对534名筛查女性的随机抽样问卷进行补充。还使用了内部会计和其他医院数据、国家统计数据和卫生市场来源。每个避免围产期死亡的实际实现成本为84 378斐济元(21 938美元),而综合所有阳性和阴性成本的净总体估计显示节省了65 680斐济元(17 077美元)。超声筛查总阳性单位成本为393菲林(102美元)。更长的超声检查时间和更多的高级检查明显减少了围产期死亡率和更好的成本-效果比。当考虑到所有重要的成本和效果时,孕中期超声筛查是具有成本效益的。版权所有©1996国际妇产科超声学会
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
OP16.13: Clinical combining‐application of ultrasound and MRI on multiplets malformations P37.08: Twin reversed arterial perfusion (TRAP) sequence: Case report of conservative management and good pregnancy outcome OC072: Assessment of endometrial and ovarian characteristics using 3‐D power Doppler ultrasound to predict response in frozen embryo transfer cycles OP03.18: Brain echogenicities in fetuses at risk for preterm birth P20.09: Three‐dimensional sonographic assessment of septate uterus before and after hysteroscopic metroplasty
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1