Recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: A Reference, Not a Rule Book.
作者信息
Carias Cristina, Chesson Harrell W, Grosse Scott D, Li Rui, Meltzer Martin I, Miller Gabrielle F, Murphy Louise B, Nurmagambetov Tursynbek A, Pike Jamison J, Whitham Hilary K
机构信息
Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia.
Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
出版信息
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Apr;54(4):600-602. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.11.013. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: A Reference, Not a Rule Book.《健康与医学领域成本效益问题第二小组的建议：参考而非规则手册》
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Apr;54(4):600-602. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.11.013. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
2
Inconsistencies in the "societal perspective" on costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.健康与医学成本效益小组在成本“社会视角”方面存在的不一致之处。
Med Decis Making. 1999 Oct-Dec;19(4):371-7. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9901900401.
3
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2.0.成本效益分析2.0
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 19;376(3):203-205. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1612619.
4
Impact of the U.S. panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.美国专家组对医疗卫生领域成本效益的影响。
Am J Prev Med. 2002 Feb;22(2):98-105. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00409-3.
5
Outcome measurement in economic evaluation.经济评估中的结果测量。
Health Econ. 1996 Jul-Aug;5(4):279-96. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199607)5:4<279::AID-HEC218>3.0.CO;2-J.
6
Editorial comment--stroke cost-effectiveness research: are acceptability curves acceptable?编辑评论——中风成本效益研究：可接受性曲线是否可接受？
Stroke. 2004 Jan;35(1):203-4. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000108267.46809.C4. Epub 2003 Dec 18.
7
Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health.质量调整生命年在儿科护理中缺乏质量：对已发表的儿童健康成本效用研究的批判性综述。
Pediatrics. 2005 May;115(5):e600-14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2127.
8
Cost and cost-effectiveness guidelines: which ones to use?成本与成本效益指南：该使用哪些？
Health Policy Plan. 2001 Mar;16(1):113-21. doi: 10.1093/heapol/16.1.113.
9
Unintended consequences of applying economic evaluation.应用经济评估的意外后果。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Jul;7(3):129-30. doi: 10.1258/135581902760082274.
10
Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion.成本效益分析中的生产力成本：分子还是分母：进一步探讨
Health Econ. 1997 Sep-Oct;6(5):511-4. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199709)6:5<511::aid-hec297>3.0.co;2-k.
引用本文的文献
1
Preferences and utilities for the health states in the treatment of neck in oral cancers.口腔癌颈部治疗中健康状态的偏好与效用
Support Care Cancer. 2025 Aug 20;33(9):799. doi: 10.1007/s00520-025-09850-7.
2
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered to children under 5 years of age in the Republic of Moldova.摩尔多瓦共和国对5岁以下儿童接种13价肺炎球菌结合疫苗的成本效益分析。
Med Pharm Rep. 2025 Jan;98(1):111-117. doi: 10.15386/mpr-2674. Epub 2025 Jan 31.
3
The economic evaluation of a housing maintenance project to improve the health of Aboriginal housing tenants in NSW: A scoping literature review and protocol for an economic analysis.新南威尔士州一项旨在改善原住民住房租户健康状况的住房维护项目的经济评估：范围界定文献综述与经济分析方案
Heliyon. 2024 Jul 9;10(14):e34282. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34282. eCollection 2024 Jul 30.
4
Cost-Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Opportunistic Compression Fracture Screening of Existing Radiographs.基于人工智能的机会性压缩骨折筛选现有 X 光片的成本效益。
J Am Coll Radiol. 2024 Sep;21(9):1489-1496. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.11.029. Epub 2024 Mar 26.
5
Health and Economic Impacts of Implementing Produce Prescription Programs for Diabetes in the United States: A Microsimulation Study.美国实施针对糖尿病的农产品处方项目的健康和经济影响：一项微观模拟研究。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Aug;12(15):e029215. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.029215. Epub 2023 Jul 7.
6
Incorporating risk preferences of patients in the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer.将患者的风险偏好纳入非小细胞肺癌免疫检查点抑制剂的估值中。
Front Oncol. 2023 Mar 8;13:1027659. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1027659. eCollection 2023.
7
Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment.脊柱外科手术经济学评价方法：系统评价与定性评估。
BMJ Open. 2023 Mar 23;13(3):e067871. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067871.
8
Transoral incisionless fundoplication is cost-effective for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.经口无切口胃底折叠术治疗胃食管反流病具有成本效益。
Endosc Int Open. 2022 Jul 15;10(7):E923-E932. doi: 10.1055/a-1783-9378. eCollection 2022 Jul.
9
Evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery: study protocol for a Delphi consensus.循证推荐用于脊柱外科经济学评价的研究方案：德尔菲共识研究协议。
BMJ Open. 2021 Dec 23;11(12):e052988. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052988.
10
A cost-benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments.用于辅助澳大利亚政府决策的预防性健康干预措施的成本效益分析框架。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2021 Dec 19;19(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00796-w.
本文引用的文献
1
CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF THE SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE WITHIN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.经济评估中社会视角的概念化：系统评价。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(2):251-260. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000526. Epub 2017 Jun 23.
2
Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.《健康与医疗领域成本效益分析的实施、方法学实践和报告推荐：第二版》。
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12195.
3
Retrospective Assessment of Cost Savings From Prevention: Folic Acid Fortification and Spina Bifida in the U.S.对预防措施成本节约的回顾性评估：美国的叶酸强化与脊柱裂
Am J Prev Med. 2016 May;50(5 Suppl 1):S74-S80. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.10.012. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
4
Economic evaluation of the routine childhood immunization program in the United States, 2009.2009 年美国常规儿童免疫规划的经济学评价。
Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):577-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0698. Epub 2014 Mar 3.
5
Economic value of home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus for reducing asthma morbidity a community guide systematic review.以家庭为基础、多触发因素、多成分干预措施的经济价值，以环境为重点，减少哮喘发病率：社区指南系统评价。
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Aug;41(2 Suppl 1):S33-47. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.05.011.
6
The economic impact of an urban asthma management program.一项城市哮喘管理项目的经济影响。
Am J Manag Care. 2009 Jun;15(6):345-51.
Zotero 插件