Did Economic Evaluations on Pharmaceuticals and Vaccination for COVID-19 Maintain Adequate Reporting Quality? A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

IF 3.6 2区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-09 DOI:10.1111/jebm.70040

Ying Tao, Yi Yang, Bingxing Luo, Dai Lian, Junling Weng, Fuming Li, Juntao Yan, Yingyao Chen

{"title":"Did Economic Evaluations on Pharmaceuticals and Vaccination for COVID-19 Maintain Adequate Reporting Quality? A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis","authors":"Ying Tao, Yi Yang, Bingxing Luo, Dai Lian, Junling Weng, Fuming Li, Juntao Yan, Yingyao Chen","doi":"10.1111/jebm.70040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study seeks to assess the reporting quality of published health economic evaluations (HEEs) on vaccination and pharmaceuticals for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and identify potential predictors associated with reporting quality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, INAHTA, and Chinese databases (e.g., SinoMed, CNKI, and WANGFANG Database). HEEs published between January 1, 2020, and August 20, 2022, that considered both costs and outcomes of vaccination and pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 were included. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement scored the reporting quality for incorporated studies. A linear regression analysis was employed to characterize the impact of various features on reporting quality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty-two studies were included in the analysis. The average CHEERS score was 18.54±3.41, with the scoring rate of reporting quality was 67% (±12%). The most inadequately reported items included health economic analysis plan, time horizon, valuation of outcomes, heterogeneity, uncertainty, distributional effects, and stakeholder involvement. Higher reporting compliance was associated with articles applying a longer time horizon (no less than 1 year) and those using a societal perspective (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The investigations that did not specify a study perspective received the lowest scores among the subgroups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, the included HEEs on vaccination and pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 had moderate reporting quality. Future HEEs should be transparently and sufficiently reported in accordance with standard guidelines (e.g., the CHEERS 2022 statement), to increase the interpretability of results, improve the reporting quality, and better inform the decision-making.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"18 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.70040","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

This study seeks to assess the reporting quality of published health economic evaluations (HEEs) on vaccination and pharmaceuticals for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and identify potential predictors associated with reporting quality.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, INAHTA, and Chinese databases (e.g., SinoMed, CNKI, and WANGFANG Database). HEEs published between January 1, 2020, and August 20, 2022, that considered both costs and outcomes of vaccination and pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 were included. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement scored the reporting quality for incorporated studies. A linear regression analysis was employed to characterize the impact of various features on reporting quality.

Results

Fifty-two studies were included in the analysis. The average CHEERS score was 18.54±3.41, with the scoring rate of reporting quality was 67% (±12%). The most inadequately reported items included health economic analysis plan, time horizon, valuation of outcomes, heterogeneity, uncertainty, distributional effects, and stakeholder involvement. Higher reporting compliance was associated with articles applying a longer time horizon (no less than 1 year) and those using a societal perspective (p < 0.05). The investigations that did not specify a study perspective received the lowest scores among the subgroups.

Conclusion

Overall, the included HEEs on vaccination and pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 had moderate reporting quality. Future HEEs should be transparently and sufficiently reported in accordance with standard guidelines (e.g., the CHEERS 2022 statement), to increase the interpretability of results, improve the reporting quality, and better inform the decision-making.

查看原文本刊更多论文

COVID-19药物和疫苗接种的经济评估是否保持足够的报告质量？系统回顾与定量分析

本研究旨在评估已发表的关于2019冠状病毒病（COVID-19）疫苗接种和药物的卫生经济评价（HEEs）的报告质量，并确定与报告质量相关的潜在预测因素。方法系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library、INAHTA和中文数据库（如：中国医学信息网、中国知网、王方数据库）。纳入了2020年1月1日至2022年8月20日期间发表的HEEs，其中考虑了COVID-19疫苗接种和药物的成本和结果。综合健康经济评估报告标准2022 （CHEERS 2022）对合并研究的报告质量进行了评分。采用线性回归分析来表征各种特征对报告质量的影响。结果共纳入52项研究。平均CHEERS评分为18.54±3.41，报告质量评分率为67%（±12%）。报告最不充分的项目包括卫生经济分析计划、时间范围、结果评估、异质性、不确定性、分配效应和利益相关者参与。较高的报告依从性与应用较长时间范围（不少于1年）和使用社会视角的文章(p <；0.05)。没有指定研究视角的调查在亚组中得分最低。结论总体而言，纳入的关于COVID-19疫苗接种和药物的HEEs报告质量中等。未来的HEEs应按照标准指南（例如，干杯2022声明）透明和充分地报告，以增加结果的可解释性，提高报告质量，并更好地为决策提供信息。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-

CiteScore

11.20

自引率

1.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.