Document Type : Review Article
Authors
-
Zhixin Fan
1, 2, 3 ¶
-
Xu Si
1, 2, 3 ¶
-
Zhongxiang Wang
4
-
Liwei Zhang
1, 2, 3
-
Junyang Liu
1, 2, 3
-
Qing He
1, 2, 3
-
Matthew Franklin
5
-
Qiang Sun
1, 2, 3, 6
-
Jia Yin
1, 2, 3
1
Department of Social Medicine and Health Management, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
2
NHC Key Lab of Health Economics and Policy Research, Shandong University, Jinan, China
3
Center for Health Management and Policy Research, Shandong University, Shandong Provincial Key New Think Tank, Jinan, China
4
Zhucheng Shiqiaozi Health Hospital, Zhucheng, China
5
Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS), School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
6
China National Health Development Research Center, Beijing, China
Abstract
Background
Pharmacoeconomic evaluations are becoming more important in China, and their research quality directly impacts government decisions, deserving extra attention. To summarize the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications for China compared to internationally and to identify areas for improvement both from a China-specific and international perspective.
Methods
First, we conducted a systematic review of pharmacoeconomic publications for China, with subsequent reporting quality assessment based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Second, we conducted an umbrella review of pharmacoeconomic publications internationally which used a similar quality assessment. We extracted the CHEERS checklist scores for each study and converted them to percentages to facilitate comparison of results.
Results
CHEERS 2022 instrument was used to evaluate the quality of 154 pharmacoeconomic publications by Chinese scholars. Across these articles, the average quality score was 61.0%, indicating a moderate level of quality on average. There were 27 (17.5%) high-quality articles, 85 moderate quality articles (55.2%) and 42 low-quality (27.3%) articles. Out of 28 scoring items, those included in the methods section such as: health economic analysis plan, characterizing heterogeneity, characterizing distributional effects, approach to engagement with patients and others affected by the study, got low scores. In addition to the generally lower scores of international articles on items 9 (Time horizon), 18 (Characterizing heterogeneity) and 24 (Effect of uncertainty), Chinese articles also scored lower than international articles on items included in the methods and other relevant information section, eg, health economic analysis plan, perspective, discount rate, analytics and assumptions, characterizing distributional effects, approach to engagement with patients and others affected by the study, source of funding, and conflicts of interest.
Conclusion
The quality of China’s pharmacoeconomic publications has been improving year by year since the establishment of the National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) in 2018, but there is still a quality gap with similar international publications which requires further focus and improvement in study conduct and reporting standards for the evidence-base to be sufficient for health technology assessment (HTA).
Keywords
)
