Suppr超能文献

抗病毒药物的药物经济学研究文献质量评价:中药与非中药的比较

Quality Appraisal of the Pharmacoeconomic Research Literature about Antivirals: A Comparison between Chinese Medicine and Non-Chinese Medicine.

作者信息

Zhang Junliang, Bai Qian, Bian Ying

机构信息

State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Taipa, Macao, China.

出版信息

Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021 Jul 14;2021:5537435. doi: 10.1155/2021/5537435. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Antiviral activity is a main function of many types of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and they may contribute more in the process of certain viral epidemics. Therefore, based on the effectiveness and economy of TCM, we aimed to determine the situation of health economic studies about antivirals, especially the difference between TCM and non-TCM.

METHODS

A literature search of three databases was conducted with a time range of January 2000-December 2020, and terms related to health economics and TCM were used as key terms. QHES and CHEERS were used as quality assessment tools.

RESULTS

203 papers were included in our research. After evaluation using QHES and CHEERS, antiviral TCM obtained an overall score of 41.37 ± 4.46/99 in QHES, compared with 48.89 ± 7.25/99 (18.18% higher than TCM) of antiviral non-TCM.

CONCLUSION

With a statistically significant difference, the overall quality of pharmacoeconomic research about antiviral non-Chinese medicine is better than that about antiviral Chinese medicine, which may have resulted from researchers' capacities or the absence of a more suitable standard for pharmacoeconomic research. It tells that the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies about TCM still warrants improvement.

摘要

引言

抗病毒活性是多种传统中药的主要功能,在某些病毒流行过程中它们可能发挥更大作用。因此,基于中药的有效性和经济性,我们旨在确定抗病毒药物卫生经济学研究的情况,尤其是中药与非中药之间的差异。

方法

对三个数据库进行文献检索,时间范围为2000年1月至2020年12月,使用与卫生经济学和中药相关的术语作为关键词。采用QHES和CHEERS作为质量评估工具。

结果

我们的研究纳入了203篇论文。使用QHES和CHEERS进行评估后,抗病毒中药在QHES中的总体得分为41.37±4.46/99,相比之下,抗病毒非中药的得分为48.89±7.25/99(比中药高18.18%)。

结论

抗病毒非中药的药物经济学研究总体质量在统计学上显著高于抗病毒中药,这可能是由于研究人员的能力问题或缺乏更合适的药物经济学研究标准所致。这表明中药药物经济学研究的质量仍有待提高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f84b/8298150/0b97e95c066d/ECAM2021-5537435.001.jpg

相似文献

1
Quality Appraisal of the Pharmacoeconomic Research Literature about Antivirals: A Comparison between Chinese Medicine and Non-Chinese Medicine.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021 Jul 14;2021:5537435. doi: 10.1155/2021/5537435. eCollection 2021.
2
Evaluation of quality of pharmacoeconomic studies involved in traditional Chinese medicine in China.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Oct;21(5):1049-1060. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1800455. Epub 2020 Aug 10.
3
Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Studies on Traditional Chinese Medicines.
Front Public Health. 2021 Aug 3;9:706366. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.706366. eCollection 2021.
5
Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis: A quality appraisal.
Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2020 Jun;6(2):39-52. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2020.05.006. Epub 2020 Jun 23.
9
A brief discussion on evidence-based clinical research of traditional Chinese medicine.
Ann Palliat Med. 2021 Dec;10(12):12937-12944. doi: 10.21037/apm-20-697. Epub 2020 Aug 20.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Viruses That Can and Cannot Coexist With Humans and the Future of SARS-CoV-2.
Front Microbiol. 2020 Sep 18;11:583252. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.583252. eCollection 2020.
2
Lianhuaqingwen exerts anti-viral and anti-inflammatory activity against novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).
Pharmacol Res. 2020 Jun;156:104761. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104761. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
3
Traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19 treatment.
Pharmacol Res. 2020 May;155:104743. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104743. Epub 2020 Mar 4.
4
A Systematic Review on the Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Publications in Egypt.
Clin Drug Investig. 2019 Feb;39(2):157-168. doi: 10.1007/s40261-018-0730-5.
5
6
Prospects of a comprehensive evaluation system for traditional Chinese medicine services.
J Integr Med. 2017 Nov;15(6):426-432. doi: 10.1016/S2095-4964(17)60364-9.
7
Assessment of the quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature in China.
J Med Econ. 2017 May;20(5):510-517. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1280501. Epub 2017 Jan 27.
8
Adapting the CHEERS Statement for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 May;33(5):533-4. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0265-z.
10
Pharmacoeconomic studies in Nepal: the need of the hour.
Front Pharmacol. 2014 Dec 8;5:272. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00272. eCollection 2014.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验