Jiehua Cheng1, Yu Zhang1, Ailin Zhong1, Miao Tian2, Guanyang Zou1, Xiaping Chen3, Hongxing Yu3, Fujian Song4, Shangcheng Zhou5. 1. 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. 2. Dongfeng Stomatological Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China. 3. Shiyan Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China. 4. Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 5. 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. whzsc2008@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Brennan M R Spiegel; Laura E Targownik; Fasiha Kanwal; Vincent Derosa; Gareth S Dulai; Ian M Gralnek; Chiun-Fang Chiou Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Dongfeng Gu; Jiang He; Pamela G Coxson; Petra W Rasmussen; Chen Huang; Anusorn Thanataveerat; Keane Y Tzong; Juyang Xiong; Miao Wang; Dong Zhao; Lee Goldman; Andrew E Moran Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 11.069