Evaluation of quality of pharmacoeconomic studies involved in traditional Chinese medicine in China

Si, Lijuan; Yin, Miao; Wang, Jialu; Yang, Shuran; Wei, Lili

doi:10.1080/14737167.2020.1800455

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the volume remains only one tenth of the number of corresponding articles on chemical drugs. Overall, the quality of published pharmacoeconomics evaluation on TCM was relatively and generally low, which was consistent with the results of several studies in 2009 ( 23 ), 2015 ( 24 ), and 2020 ( 25 ). And compared with the studies of Chen ( 26 ), Li ( 27 ), Lei ( 28 ) in 2004, 2008, and 2010 respectively, the quality of pharmacoeconomics research articles on TCM was also lower than that on chemical drugs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…However, the volume remains only one tenth of the number of corresponding articles on chemical drugs. Overall, the quality of published pharmacoeconomics evaluation on TCM was relatively and generally low, which was consistent with the results of several studies in 2009 (23), 2015 (24), and 2020 (25). And compared Three main limitations in quality were identified.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Studies on Traditional Chinese Medicines

Yang

Zhang

Deng

et al. 2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study was aimed to find and appraise the available published pharmacoeconomic research on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), to identify related issues and make suggestions for improvement in future research.Methods: After developing a search strategy and establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria, pharmacoeconomic studies on TCM were sourced from seven Chinese and English databases from inception to April 2020. Basic information about the studies and key pharmacoeconomic items of each study were extracted. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the British Medical Journal economic submissions checklist for authors and peer reviewers, focusing on factors such as study design, research time horizon, sample size, perspective, and evaluation methods.Results: A total of 431 published pharmacoeconomic articles with 434 studies on topics including cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-utility, or combination analyses were identified and included in this review. Of these, 424 were published in Chinese and 7 in English. These studies conducted economic evaluations of 264 Chinese patent medicines and 70 types of TCM prescriptions for 143 diseases, including those of the central nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, gynecologyical, and other systems. The studied TCMs included blood-activating agents (such as Xuesaitong tablet, Fufant Danshen tablet, and Danhong Injection), blood circulation promoting agents (such as Shuxuetong injection, Rupixiao tablet, and Fufang Danshen injection), and other therapeutic agents. The overall quality score of the studies was 0.62 (range 0.38 to 0.85). The mean quality score of studies in English was 0.72, which was higher than that of studies in Chinese with 0.62.Conclusions: The quality of pharmacoeconomic studies on TCM was relatively, generally low. Major concerns included study design, inappropriate pharmacoeconomic evaluation, insufficient sample size, or non-scientific assessment. Enhanced methodological training and cooperation, the development of a targeted pharmacoeconomic evaluation guideline, and proposal of a reasonable health outcome index are warranted to improve quality of future studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…However, the volume remains only one tenth of the number of corresponding articles on chemical drugs. Overall, the quality of published pharmacoeconomics evaluation on TCM was relatively and generally low, which was consistent with the results of several studies in 2009 (23), 2015 (24), and 2020 (25). And compared Three main limitations in quality were identified.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Studies on Traditional Chinese Medicines

Yang

Zhang

Deng

et al. 2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Worldwide, the quality evaluation studies of EEs are limited, primarily focusing on different health services, including various therapies of main cancers causing much death [ 6 – 9 ], intervention for oral health [ 10 , 11 ], traditional Chinese medicine [ 12 ] and other interventions. Also, various tools are used to assess the quality, such as Drummond's checklist, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) checklist, Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) checklist and Philips' checklist.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review on reporting quality of economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs in China national reimbursement drug list

Bao,

Liu,

et al. 2024

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to examine the reporting quality of existing economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) included in China National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 (CHEERS 2013). Methods We performed a systematic literature research through 7 databases to identify published economic evaluations for GLDs included in the China NRDL up to March 2021. Reporting quality of identified studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the CHEERS checklist. The Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test were performed to examine the association between reporting quality and characteristics of the identified studies. Results We have identified 24 studies, which evaluated six GLDs types. The average score rate of the included studies was 77.41% (SD:13.23%, Range 47.62%-91.67%). Among all the required reporting items, characterizing heterogeneity (score rate = 4.17%) was the least satisfied item. Among six parts of CHEERS, results part scored least at 0.55 (score rate = 54.79%) because of the incompleteness of characterizing uncertainty. Results from the Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test showed that model choice, journal type, type of economic evaluations, and study perspective were associated with the reporting quality of the studies. Conclusions There remains room to improve the reporting quality of economic evaluations for GLDs in NRDL. Checklists such as CHEERS should be widely used to improve the reporting quality of economic researches in China.

show abstract

“…However, these published economic evaluations could reflect those dossiers to some extents. Previously, other studies have evaluated the quality of economic evaluation in China [ 20 , 21 ]. However, the quality assessment of this economic evaluation of negotiated oncology drugs has been given little attention thus far.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China’s national reimbursement drug list

Liu

Jiang

et al. 2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China’s 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). Methods A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China’s 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores. Results Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications. Conclusion The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.

show abstract

Evaluation of quality of pharmacoeconomic studies involved in traditional Chinese medicine in China

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Studies on Traditional Chinese Medicines

Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Studies on Traditional Chinese Medicines

A systematic review on reporting quality of economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs in China national reimbursement drug list

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China’s national reimbursement drug list

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About