{"title":"妊娠期一期超声筛查的成本-效果:赫尔辛基超声试验报告","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":"{\"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}","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
Cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial
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