Quality of Health Economic Evaluations in Mainland China: A Comparison of Peer-Reviewed Articles in Chinese and in English

Abstract

Background Health and education are two closely related factors that affect human development. A limited number of studies have been conducted in China, most of which have been based on small sample sizes and with inconsistent results. The study investigates the association between mortality rate and educational level in China based on the sixth national population census in 2010.Methods This is large-scale population study based on the nationally administrated data sets of population census in 2010, 2000 and 1990. The 2010 census covered a total population of 1 332 810,869 in China. ResultsIn general, standardized mortality rate decreased as educational level increased. The standardized mortality rate is higher among males than among females with equivalent educational levels. The standardized mortality rate in all the educational groups declined to varying degrees from 1990. 2000 to 2010. The standardised mortality rate declined with increasing educational levels from no education to university undergraduate groups in 1990, 2000 and 2010. The standardized mortality rate declined as the degree of education increased in cities, towns, and villages, but gradually increased at the same educational level from cities, towns, to villages in general. The difference in each region is considerable and the population quality of the developed area is generally high. The percentage of the uneducated population to the total population aged 15 years and over (%) was positively correlated with the standardized mortality rate. By contrast, the percentage of the population with a high school education to the total population aged 6 years and over (%) was negatively correlated with the standardized mortality rate.

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

“…There was a significant difference between the average quality scores of the studies published in Chinese and those published in English. The findings also were consistent with Jiehua Cheng et al [ 25 ]. This difference may be because the editors of Chinese journals did not require authors to report standardized economic evaluations nor to supplement their details.…”

“…Before our study, a study including pharmacoeconomic research from 2003 to 2014 in China reported a mean score of 18.7 assessed using the same CHEERS checklist, which had 1.02 higher than the score of our study [ 20 ]. The Jiehua Cheng et al study showed that the average quality score of the included studies in China from 2006 to 2015 was 56.59 ± 16.90 [ 25 ], less than 74.63 ± 12.75 from our study. The reporting quality on China’s published economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs in 2020 latest NRDL may have been improved, but it is still lower than some studies.…”

“…Due to inapplicable items, the maximum score for each study was less than or equal to 24. In addition to calculating each study’s CHEERS score, we also used a percentage of fully, partially, and not met items to transform each study’s CHEERS scores into a range of 0-100, providing us to compare the quality scores of various studies and items [ 25 ].…”