浏览全部资源
扫码关注微信
- Journal Information
- Archive
- Submission
- For Reviewers
- Statement and Policies
Quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature in China from 2018 to 2022
- ZHONGGUO YAOFANG Vol. 34, Issue 21, Pages: 2613-2619(2023)
- 作者机构：
1.山东大学齐鲁医学院公共卫生学院卫生管理与政策研究中心，济南;250012
2.国家卫生健康委员会卫生经济与政策研究重点实验室（山东大学），济南 250012
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
DOI：10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.21.08
CLC： R956Published：15 November 2023，
Received：02 April 2023，
Revised：10 October 2023，
扫 描 看 全 文
樊智鑫,刘君阳,张立炜等.2018－2022年中国药物经济学评价文献质量评估 Δ[J].中国药房,2023,34(21):2613-2619.
FAN Zhixin,LIU Junyang,ZHANG Liwei,et al.Quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature in China from 2018 to 2022[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2023,34(21):2613-2619.
樊智鑫,刘君阳,张立炜等.2018－2022年中国药物经济学评价文献质量评估 Δ[J].中国药房,2023,34(21):2613-2619. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.21.08.
FAN Zhixin,LIU Junyang,ZHANG Liwei,et al.Quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature in China from 2018 to 2022[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2023,34(21):2613-2619. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.21.08.
摘要
目的
2
分析我国药物经济学评价研究目前存在的问题，提高药物经济学评价研究的规范性与科学性，从而为政府决策提供更高质量的证据。
方法
2
检索中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库、PubMed、Web of Science等数据库2018－2022年收录的中国药物经济学评价文献，利用Excel 2016软件对符合纳入标准的文献进行关键信息提取，通过卫生经济学研究质量评价（QHES）量表对纳入文献进行质量评价。
结果
2
共纳入113篇文献，其中中文文献85篇、英文文献28篇。文献整体质量的平均得分为65.7分，其中中文文献平均得分62.0分，英文文献平均得分76.9分。2018、2019、2020、2021、2022年文献质量评分的中位数分别为62.0、70.5、59.3、71.0、73.0分。65篇文献明确报告了研究角度，36篇文献未明确说明贴现率，25篇文献未对阈值的定义明确说明，53篇文献同时使用了2种敏感性分析方法。在QHES量表不同条目下，条目2（研究角度）、条目8（时间范围及贴现）、条目14（潜在偏倚）、条目16（资金来源）的得分占比较低。
结论
2
2018－2022年我国学者发表药物经济学评价的文章在质量方面总体呈波动上升趋势，但仍存在一定的进步空间。研究角度理解不清晰、成本与健康效果指标单一、研究时限设计不合理、贴现率和阈值界定不明确、敏感性分析缺失等是目前我国药物经济学研究中存在的主要问题。
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
2
To analyze existing problems of pharmacoeconomic evaluation research in China and to improve the standardization and scientificity of research， so as to provide more high-quality evidence for government decision-making.
METHODS
2
Retrieved from CNKI， Wanfang database， VIP， PubMed， Web of Science from 2018 to 2022， the literature related to pharmacoeconomic evaluation in China was collected； Excel 2016 software was used to extract the key information of the included literature which met inclusion criteria. The Quality of Health Economic Studies （QHES） scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature.
RESULTS
2
A total of 113 pieces of literature were included in this study， involving 85 pieces of Chinese literature and 28 pieces of English literature. The overall score of QHES included literature was 65.7， of which the average score of Chinese literature was 62.0 and English literature was 76.9. The median quality scores for the literature in 2018， 2019， 2020， 2021 and 2022 were 62.0， 70.5， 59.3， 71.0， and 73.0， respectively. Of these， 65 pieces of literature reported the research perspective； 36 reported the discount rate indistinctly； 25 provided unclear definitions of thresholds； and 53 used two sensitivity analysis methods. Among different items of the QHES scale， item 2 （research perspective）， item 8 （time range and discount rate）， item 14 （potential bias） and item 16 （sources of funding） had low percentage of scores.
CONCLUSIONS
2
From 2018 to 2022， pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature published by Chinese academics has generally shown a fluctuating upward trend in terms of quality， but there is still some room for improvement. The main problems in current pharmacoeconomics research in China include unclear understanding of the research perspective， single measurement of cost and health outcomes， unreasonable design of time horizon， indistinct description of the threshold or discount rate， and lack of sensitivity analysis.
关键词
药物经济学质量评价中国卫生经济学研究质量评价量表
Keywords
quality evaluationChinaQuality of Health Economic Studies scale
references
BALTAGI B H，LAGRAVINESE R，MOSCONE F，et al. Health care expenditure and income：a global perspective[J]. Health Econ，2017，26（7）：863-874.
LI J M，HAN X L. Spatiotemporal evolution and drivers of total health expenditure across the mainland of China in recent years[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health，2022，20（1）：597.
WHO. World Health Statistics 2018[EB/OL]. [2023-03-01]. https：//www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_stasistics/2018/en/https://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_stasistics/2018/en/.
中华人民共和国国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴2022[M]. 北京：中国统计出版社，2022：526.
National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China. China statistical yearbook[M]. Beijing：China Statistics Press，2022：526.
DRUMMOND M F，SCULPHER M J，CLAXTON K， et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes[M]. Oxford，UK：Oxford University Press，2015：5-8.
KESSELHEIM A S，AVORN J，SARPATWARI A. The high cost of prescription drugs in the United States：origins and prospects for reform[J]. JAMA，2016，316（8）：858-871.
国家医疗保障局. 关于公布《2019年国家医保药品目录调整工作方案》的公告[EB/OL].（2019-04-17）[2023-03-04]. http：//www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2019/4/17/art_53_1215.htmlhttp://www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2019/4/17/art_53_1215.html.
National Healthcare Security Administration. Announcement on the Publication of the 2019 Work Programme for the Adjustment of the National Health Insurance Drug Catalogue[EB/OL].（2019-04-17）[2023-03-04]. http：//www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2019/4/17/art_53_1215.htmlhttp://www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2019/4/17/art_53_1215.html.
CHIOU C F，HAY J W，WALLACE J F，et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies[J]. Med Care，2003，41（1）：32-44.
张诗雨，马爱霞，李洪超，等. 药物经济学文献质量评价工具再评价[J]. 中国循证医学杂志，2019，19（7）：844-850.
ZHANG S Y，MA A X，LI H C，et al. Instruments designed for quality assessment of pharmaceutical economic evaluations：an overview[J]. Chin J Evid Based Med，2019，19（7）：844-850.
YI S，HONG J，YOON H，et al. Systematic review and quality assessment of health economic evaluation studies （2007-2019） conducted in South Korea[J]. Appl Health Econ Health Policy，2022，20（6）：819-834.
KAREKAR S，SHETTY Y. Assessment of the quality and trend of reporting of health economic evaluation research in India[J]. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res，2021，21（4）：595-599.
ERKU D，MERSHA A G，ALI E E，et al. A systematic review of scope and quality of health economic evaluations conducted in Ethiopia[J]. Health Policy Plan，2022，37（4）：514-522.
DESAI P R，CHANDWANI H S，RASCATI K L. Asses- sing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in India：a systematic review[J]. Pharmacoeconomics，2012，30（9）：749-762.
雷蕾，胡明，张铮. 2010年国内药物经济学评价文献的系统评估和质量评价[J]. 中国药房，2013，24（26）：2401-2404.
LEI L，HU M，ZHANG Z. Systematic analysis and quality evaluation of domestic pharmacoeconomic evaluation literatures published in 2010[J]. China Pharm，2013，24（26）：2401-2404.
YANG N，ZHANG H H，DENG T Y，et al. Systematic review and quality evaluation of pharmacoeconomic studies on traditional Chinese medicines[J]. Front Public Health，2021，9：706366.
DRUMMOND M. Twenty years of using economic eva- luations for drug reimbursement decisions：what has been achieved?[J]. J Health Polit Policy Law，2013，38（6）：1081-1102.
HASEGAWA M，KOMOTO S，SHIROIWA T，et al. Formal implementation of cost-effectiveness evaluations in Japan：a unique health technology assessment system[J]. Value Health，2020，23（1）：43-51.
ZHAO Y，FENG H M，QU J，et al. A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines[J]. J Med Econ，2018，21（1）：85-96.
VERNON E，HIEDEMANN B，BOWIE B H. Economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening prior to prescri- bing combined oral contraceptives：a systematic and critical review[J]. Appl Health Econ Health Policy，2017，15（5）：583-595.
0
Views
8
下载量
0
CSCD
- L-PDFDownload
- WORDDownload
- Meta-XMLDownload
- BibTeXDownload
- EndnoteDownload
- RefMan Download
- NoteExpressDownload
- NoteFirstDownload
Publicity Resources
Related Articles
Related Author
Related Institution
- Address：8/F,129 Daping Main Street,Yuzhong District,Chongqing 400042,P.R.China
- Technical support is provided by Beijing Founder Electronics co., LTD 渝ICP备15012710号
公网安备50010302001817 - It is recommended to read the content of this site in Chrome&IE9+. Please switch to extreme mode in browser 360.
- Cookies We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies.