课件：I在肿瘤化疗的应用.ppt

指NSAID * 2006年美国预防服务工作组对美国临床预防措施进行获益和经济效益学的评估，应用阿司匹林进行预防的健康获益和经济效益都是5分，名列所有预防措施的首位，明显高于高血压、糖尿病和肥胖的筛查。（原文评价了数十项预防措施，本表摘录了前3项和部分其他措施） 虽然从纯医学角度考虑≥40岁的男性和≥50岁的女性如无禁忌推荐使用阿司匹林略显积极，但即便按此标准估算，阿司匹林所带来的全社会疾病负担的降低和卫生经费的节约仍然名列现有医学预防手段最前列。 In 2006, Partnership for Prevention? and HealthPartners Research Foundation, under the guidance of the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, published a study1 that ranked 25 evidence-based clinical preventive services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).2 Services were ranked based on each service’s health benefits and economic value. How Preventive Services Were Ranked: The health benefits of preventive services were defined as clinically preventable burden (CPB), or the disease, injury or premature death that would be prevented if the service were delivered to all people in the target population. The economic value of preventive services was measured as cost effectiveness (CE), which compares the net cost of a service to its health benefits. CE provided a standard measure for comparing services’ return on investment. Services that produce the most health benefits received the highest CPB score of 5. Services that were most cost effective received the highest CE score of 5. Scores for CPB and CE were then added to give each service a possible total score between 10 and 2. Priorities Among Effective Clinical Preventive Services Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis Michael V. Maciosek, PhD, Ashley B. Coffield, MPA, Nichol M. Edwards, MS, Thomas J. Flottemesch, PhD, Michael J. Goodman, PhD, Leif I. Solberg, MD Background: Decision makers at multiple levels need information about which clinical preventive services matter the most so that they can prioritize their actions. This study was designed to produce comparable estimates of relative health impact and cost effectiveness for services considered effective by the U.S. Preventive Services Ta