Impact of China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations on study quality: a systematic review of economic evaluations in China.

IF 3.3 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Shihuan Cao, Wanxian Liang, Changhao Liang, Huansen Lin, Chenxi Gao, Lujia Yang, Yuming Liu, Yusi Suo, Kexin Liu, Yunzheng Chen, Lining Zhang, Hanfei Wang, Han Wang, Xuejing Jin
{"title":"Impact of China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations on study quality: a systematic review of economic evaluations in China.","authors":"Shihuan Cao, Wanxian Liang, Changhao Liang, Huansen Lin, Chenxi Gao, Lujia Yang, Yuming Liu, Yusi Suo, Kexin Liu, Yunzheng Chen, Lining Zhang, Hanfei Wang, Han Wang, Xuejing Jin","doi":"10.1186/s13561-025-00650-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Given the critical role of pharmacoeconomics in supporting decision-making and the urgent need to address the study quality of economic evaluations (EEs), this study aimed to analyse whether the China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations (China PE Guidelines, 4 versions) improved the study quality of EEs and summarize existing methodological issues of EEs in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched 4 Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc) and included original EEs since 2016 in China. The quality assessment included 6 dimensions and was conducted using the framework of China PE Guidelines 2020. Study quality was compared between studies referencing and not referencing the China PE Guidelines, studies published before and after the China PE Guidelines 2020, and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and non-TCM studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,046 studies were included. Most studies did not report the study perspective (76.8%). Individual-level data-based studies were the most common type (75.0%), with the characteristic of a short time horizon. There were 2,044 studies reporting time horizon, and 437 studies reported discounting rate among 722 studies with time horizon longer than 1 year. And 2,484 studies measured direct cost only. Clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were the most commonly used primary outcomes (81.5%). Most of cost-effectiveness analysis was used (71.4%), and approximately half of the studies did not conduct incremental analysis or uncertainty analysis (52.6% and 55.6%, respectively). The quality of studies referencing any of the 4 China PE Guidelines (435 studies) was better in all six assessment dimensions, and the study quality improved after the release of China PE Guidelines 2020 (686 studies) in most included dimensions. Whether before or after the release of the China PE Guidelines 2020, the quality of TCM studies (459 studies) was better than that of non-TCM studies (2587 studies).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>China PE Guidelines have improved the study quality of EEs in China. To better support decision-making, the quality of EE remains to be improved, especially in terms of the study perspective, time horizon, cost identification scope and discounting aspects.</p>","PeriodicalId":46936,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Review","volume":"15 1","pages":"53"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12228225/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-025-00650-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Given the critical role of pharmacoeconomics in supporting decision-making and the urgent need to address the study quality of economic evaluations (EEs), this study aimed to analyse whether the China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations (China PE Guidelines, 4 versions) improved the study quality of EEs and summarize existing methodological issues of EEs in China.

Methods: We searched 4 Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc) and included original EEs since 2016 in China. The quality assessment included 6 dimensions and was conducted using the framework of China PE Guidelines 2020. Study quality was compared between studies referencing and not referencing the China PE Guidelines, studies published before and after the China PE Guidelines 2020, and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and non-TCM studies.

Results: A total of 3,046 studies were included. Most studies did not report the study perspective (76.8%). Individual-level data-based studies were the most common type (75.0%), with the characteristic of a short time horizon. There were 2,044 studies reporting time horizon, and 437 studies reported discounting rate among 722 studies with time horizon longer than 1 year. And 2,484 studies measured direct cost only. Clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were the most commonly used primary outcomes (81.5%). Most of cost-effectiveness analysis was used (71.4%), and approximately half of the studies did not conduct incremental analysis or uncertainty analysis (52.6% and 55.6%, respectively). The quality of studies referencing any of the 4 China PE Guidelines (435 studies) was better in all six assessment dimensions, and the study quality improved after the release of China PE Guidelines 2020 (686 studies) in most included dimensions. Whether before or after the release of the China PE Guidelines 2020, the quality of TCM studies (459 studies) was better than that of non-TCM studies (2587 studies).

Conclusions: China PE Guidelines have improved the study quality of EEs in China. To better support decision-making, the quality of EE remains to be improved, especially in terms of the study perspective, time horizon, cost identification scope and discounting aspects.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

《中国药物经济学评价指南》对研究质量的影响:中国经济评价的系统综述。
目的:鉴于药物经济学在支持决策中的关键作用和解决经济评价研究质量的迫切需要,本研究旨在分析《中国药物经济学评价指南》(中国PE指南,4版)是否提高了经济评价的研究质量,并总结中国经济评价存在的方法学问题。方法:检索4个中文数据库(中国国家知识基础设施数据库、万方数据库、维普数据库和中国生物医学光盘),纳入2016年以来中国的原始EEs。质量评估包括6个维度,采用《中国体育指南2020》框架进行。研究质量比较了引用和未引用《中国体育指南》的研究、在《中国体育指南2020》之前和之后发表的研究、中医研究和非中医研究。结果:共纳入3046项研究。大多数研究没有报告研究视角(76.8%)。基于个人数据的研究是最常见的类型(75.0%),具有时间跨度短的特点。2044项研究报告了时间范围,722项研究中有437项研究报告了时间范围大于1年的贴现率。2484项研究只测量了直接成本。临床结局和患者报告结局是最常用的主要结局(81.5%)。大多数研究使用了成本-效果分析(71.4%),大约一半的研究没有进行增量分析或不确定性分析(分别为52.6%和55.6%)。参考《中国体育指南2020》(686项研究)的研究质量在所有6个评估维度中均较好,且在《中国体育指南2020》(686项研究)发布后,大多数纳入维度的研究质量都有所提高。无论是在《中国体育指南2020》发布之前还是之后,中医研究(459项)的质量都优于非中医研究(2587项)。结论:中国PE指南提高了中国EEs的研究质量。为了更好地支持决策,情感表达的质量有待提高,特别是在研究视角、时间范围、成本识别范围和贴现方面。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.20%
发文量
59
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Economics Review is an international high-quality journal covering all fields of Health Economics. A broad range of theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy with a health economic focus will be considered for publication. Its scope includes macro- and microeconomics of health care financing, health insurance and reimbursement as well as health economic evaluation, health services research and health policy analysis. Further research topics are the individual and institutional aspects of health care management and the growing importance of health care in developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信