Assessment of the quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature in China

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the quality of Chinese pharmacoeconomic-evaluation literature published between 2012–2014 retrieved from the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) in order to assess their adherence to recommendations of the Chinese Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines.

Methods: Identified literature was screened according to pre-specified criteria to access legibility for inclusion. Each included piece of literature was systematically compared against the recommendations proposed by the relevant Chinese guidelines.

Results: After culling, 259 studies were included in the comparative analysis. When compared to a previous study evaluating the quality of similar literature published between 1997–2007, the results showed improvements in certain technical aspects over the years. Particularly, an improvement was observed in more diverse evaluation methods being used, increased use of cost-utility analysis (2.43% in 2012–2014 vs 0.26% in 1997–2007) and use of discounting (45% in 2012–2014 vs 4.35% in 1997– 2007). In addition, a small number of studies were starting to apply modeling.

Conclusion: The quality of economic evaluation literature has improved in recent years, with more researchers realizing the importance and necessity of using discounting, sensitivity analysis, and modeling when conducting economic evaluation. This study also highlights certain important areas needing further attention when conducting economic evaluations in China. These include the ICER threshold of economic analysis, more detailed guidance in performing sensitivity analysis and modeling, as well as transferability of cost data across different regions. Overall, the results would support the positive contribution of the Chinese Economic Guideline in promoting economic evaluations in China.

Keywords:

• Pharmacoeconomics
• evaluation guidelines
• quality
• literature review
• comparative analysis
• China

Transparency

Declaration of funding

The authors declared that no sponsorship/funding was received for the project.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare. JME peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the staff at the study site for their assistance during the literature collection process.