Evaluation of quality of pharmacoeconomic studies involved in traditional Chinese medicine in China

ABSTRACT

Objectives

The pharmacoeconomic studies of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are still in its infancy. Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM to improve the efficiency of health resource allocation and guide the rational use of medicine.

Methods

Four databases were searched from inception to January 2018. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) were used to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality. STATA 12.0 and Meta analyst 3.13 were used to analyze the related data.

Results

A total of 178 studies were included. The methodological evaluation of the study found that the total score of QHES was 47.85 ± 8.09. The report quality evaluation results found that many studies did not report comprehensive information, such as lack of detailed reports on abstracts, study perspectives, time frames, discount rates, model selection, but the titles, study background and location, and health results, resource and cost estimates, analysis methods, and heterogeneity analysis are reported in more detail. Six of the ten stratification factors have statistically significant differences.

Conclusion

The overall quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM is low, and further standardization and improvement are needed to obtain reliable study results.

KEYWORDS:

• Traditional Chinese medicine
• China
• pharmacoeconomic study
• methodological quality
• reporting quality

Article highlights

• The reporting rate of 10 items of CHEERS was below 10%

• The score of methodological quality is 47.85±8.09

• The reporting and methodological quality of Traditional Chinese Medicine need to improve

Author contributions

SLJ and WLL conceived and designed the research project. SLJ, WLL, and YM performed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft. WJL, YSR and ZJ reviewed and critiqued the manuscript. All authors reviewed and agreed with the final manuscript.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.