Shan Jiang1, Xiaojing Ma1, Pooja Desai1, Li Yang2, Karen Rascati3. 1. UT Austin College of Pharmacy, Health Outcomes and Pharmacy Practice, Austin, TX, USA. 2. Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing, China. 3. UT Austin College of Pharmacy, Health Outcomes and Pharmacy Practice, Austin, TX, USA. Electronic address: krascati@mail.utexas.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the extent and quality of published pharmacoeconomic studies based in China. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify pharmacoeconomic studies conducted in China. The keywords included different combinations of health economics, pharmacoeconomic, cost-effectiveness, and China. The inclusion criteria for the studies were: 1) original research articles; 2) written/published in English; 3) comparing a pharmaceutical to another pharmaceutical, treatment modality, or no treatment; and 4) conducted in China. The articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers using the 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies scale for pharmacoeconomic studies. General and economic analysis information was collected from the articles. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included, which were published in 11 different journals between 2006 and 2012 and had an average of 5 ± 2 authors. The mean Quality of Health Economic Studies scale scores for pharmacoeconomic studies was 80 ± 10. More than two-thirds of the authors resided in China (70%) and most had a medical background (90%). Most studies were published in foreign journals (not based in China) (90%), conducted cost-effectiveness (65%) or cost-utility analyses (65%), and used modeling as their study design (80%). CONCLUSIONS: China-based pharmacoeconomic studies written in English are limited in number, but, on average, are of good quality. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals should be encouraged in China because appropriate allocation of health care resources is important in a country where, despite economic growth, resources remain scarce relative to needs.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the extent and quality of published pharmacoeconomic studies based in China. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify pharmacoeconomic studies conducted in China. The keywords included different combinations of health economics, pharmacoeconomic, cost-effectiveness, and China. The inclusion criteria for the studies were: 1) original research articles; 2) written/published in English; 3) comparing a pharmaceutical to another pharmaceutical, treatment modality, or no treatment; and 4) conducted in China. The articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers using the 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies scale for pharmacoeconomic studies. General and economic analysis information was collected from the articles. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included, which were published in 11 different journals between 2006 and 2012 and had an average of 5 ± 2 authors. The mean Quality of Health Economic Studies scale scores for pharmacoeconomic studies was 80 ± 10. More than two-thirds of the authors resided in China (70%) and most had a medical background (90%). Most studies were published in foreign journals (not based in China) (90%), conducted cost-effectiveness (65%) or cost-utility analyses (65%), and used modeling as their study design (80%). CONCLUSIONS: China-based pharmacoeconomic studies written in English are limited in number, but, on average, are of good quality. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals should be encouraged in China because appropriate allocation of health care resources is important in a country where, despite economic growth, resources remain scarce relative to needs.