School of Public Health and Management, Higher Education Mega Centre, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 232 Wai Huan Dong Road, Panyu District, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong, China.
Dongfeng Stomatological Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022 Jan;20(1):35-54. doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00674-0. Epub 2021 Jul 29.
Our objective was to assess the incidence and quality of reporting of published health economic evaluations in mainland China and compare the quality of peer-reviewed articles in Chinese and English.
A comprehensive search was conducted for economic evaluations pertaining to China published from 2006 to 2015 using the PubMed, CBM, CMCC, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases. All studies in English that met the inclusion criteria were included. For studies in Chinese, 200 sampled studies were included according to the random seeds method, and the same number of the most-cited studies in Chinese as those in English were included according to the number of citations and journal grades. Researchers independently assessed the quality of the studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
After literature search and screening, a total of 310 studies were identified. The majority of these studies were cost-effectiveness studies (82.26%). Scores among different CHEERS items varied greatly. There was a gap between the average quality scores of the studies published in Chinese and those published in English (49.78 ± 9.31 vs. 82.48 ± 17.69) and between the average quality scores of the included most-cited studies in Chinese and English, which was slightly smaller (54.08 ± 10.27 vs. 82.48 ± 17.69). The methods, results, and discussion sections of studies published in Chinese were of low quality.
The quality of reporting of health economic evaluations in mainland China has developed slowly. Most of the included studies were incomplete in the presentation of content, making the results less reliable. It is important to standardize and improve the quality of Chinese health economic research.
本研究旨在评估中国大陆已发表的卫生经济评价研究的报告质量，并比较中、英文发表文献的质量。
通过 PubMed、CBM、CMCC、CNKI、VIP 和万方数据库，检索 2006 年至 2015 年中国大陆发表的卫生经济评价研究，纳入英文文献，采用随机种子法抽取 200 篇中文文献，按被引频次和期刊等级纳入相应数量的中文高被引文献，采用 CONSORT 声明扩展的 CHEERS 清单评价文献质量。
经文献筛选，共纳入 310 篇文献，其中以成本效果分析为主（82.26%）。各条目评分差异较大，中文文献质量评分（49.78±9.31 分）显著低于英文文献（82.48±17.69 分），中文高被引文献与英文文献质量评分（54.08±10.27 分）也存在差异。中文文献在方法学、结果和讨论部分的报告质量较差。
中国大陆卫生经济评价研究的报告质量发展缓慢，多数研究内容不完整，结果的可信度较低。规范和提高卫生经济研究的质量至关重要。
