Quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China

Ma, Huifen; Jian, Weiyan; Xu, Tingting; He, Yasheng; Rizzo, John A.; Fang, Hai

doi:10.1097/md.0000000000005114

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study found that the number of health economic evaluations in the field of cardiac surgery has increased over time, and that the reporting quality has also improved. These findings are similar to those described elsewhere (18).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

Guerre

Laaboub

Colin

et al. 2019

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesCardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies.ResultsA total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items “characterizing heterogeneity,” “assumptions,” and “choice of model.”ConclusionsThe present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The assessment criteria used in the present study (CHEERS) have been applied in several systematic reviews reporting the quality of health economic publications (18–21). There were several items that are partially or not reported by a large number of articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

Guerre

Laaboub

Colin

et al. 2019

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the number of studies identified in this review compares favourably with previously published systematic reviews of the Chinese CEA literature 11 12 21. The most recently published review by Ma et al , which focused on study quality, included 32 pharmacoeconomic studies published up to 2014 12. Their review covered additional regions (studies relating to Special Administrative Regions, such as Hong Kong, were included) and also covered measures of effectiveness aside from the QALY or DALY.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Another systematic review of pharmacoeconomic publications produced in China between 2006 and 2012 included 20 studies 11. While another systematic review of the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications from China through 2014 included 32 studies 12…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking stock of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare in China

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is playing an increasingly important role in informing healthcare decision-making in China. This study aims to review the published literature on CEA in mainland China and describe its characteristics and evolution. We provide recommendations on the future direction of CEA as a methodology and as a tool to support healthcare decision-making in China.MethodsEnglish-language cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost-per-disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) publications relating to mainland China were reviewed using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry through 2017. Study features were summarised using descriptive statistics. Changes in study methodology over time were analysed by trend test, and study characteristics influencing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost-per-QALY studies were investigated using logistic regression.Results170 studies were identified reporting CEA for mainland China (cost/QALY=125, cost/DALY=45) since 1998. The number and quality of studies has increased over the past two decades, with significantly more cost-per-QALY studies compared with cost-per-DALY studies (p<0.0001) and more studies with authors affiliated with Chinese institutions (p=0.0002). The average quality score was 5.04 out of 7 for cost-per-QALY and 4.70 for cost-per-DALY studies based on Registry reviewers’ subjective assessment of overall quality (methods, assumptions and reporting practices). The median ICER reported for interventions for oncology patients was higher (US$26 694 per QALY) than the median ICER reported for all interventions (US$11 503 per QALY). Oncology interventions were associated with the likelihood of reporting higher ICERs than the median ICER (p=0.003).ConclusionThe number of English-language published CEA studies relating to China has grown rapidly over the past 20 years. In terms of quality, the China studies compare favourably with international studies, although they remain a small proportion of studies globally.

show abstract

“…The number of published studies in China has increased from 91 in 1998 to 421 in 2007 to more than 1000 in 2016. 41,42 Malaysia has also developed pharmacoeconomic guidelines and is now towards the phase of implementation. Similarly, Indonesia has also adopted pharmacoeconomic guidelines which are being used by the Ministry of Health for clinical decision making.…”

Section: Asian Development In the Pharmacoeconomicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacoeconomics Status in Asia and an Emerging Hub in the Indo-Pak

Sadia¹,

Rehman²,

Sattar³

2019

IJPER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: A review has been carried out to understand pharmacoeconomics and its development in the Asian region. Findings: Pharmacoeconomics is a subset of health economics which applies the methodologies and principles of health economics in clinical decision making. Currently, a number of countries around the globe have implemented pharmacoeconomics in their health care systems. However, the development of pharmacoeconomics in the Asia is very debatable. With countries like South Korea, Japan, China and Thailand where health economics is not only being implemented but is also progressing very rapidly, the southern part of Asia specifically India and Pakistan are far behind. Summary: Pharmacoecomics is in very infancy in the South Asia especially in India and Pakistan. It is the need of the hour to improve the practice and development of new pharmacoeconomics guidelines to meet up the standards of the remaining world.

show abstract

Quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China

Cited by 12 publications

References 52 publications

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

Taking stock of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare in China

Pharmacoeconomics Status in Asia and an Emerging Hub in the Indo-Pak

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About