返回 
加入收藏
2018－2022年我国中药药物经济学研究文献的质量评价
x
请在关注微信后，向客服人员索取文件
| 篇名： | 2018－2022年我国中药药物经济学研究文献的质量评价 |
| TITLE： | Quality evaluation of the research literature on the pharmacoeconomics of traditional Chinese medicines in China from 2018 to 2022 |
| 摘要： | 目的 评估2018－2022年我国中药药物经济学研究文献的质量，了解国内中药药物经济学研究的发展状况和问题，为今后中药药物经济学的规范化研究提供参考。方法系统检索国内外有关数据库，获取2018年1月1日－2022年11月21日我国公开发表的中药药物经济学研究文献，对文献的基本情况、研究概况、药物经济学评价方法与内容进行总结；使用CHEERS2022清单对文献质量进行评价，通过统计每篇文献具体条目的得分计算文献总得分，并将文献质量划分为优秀、良好、合格和不合格。结果共纳入71篇研究，包括60篇中文文献和11篇英文文献。53.52%的文献有基金支持；研究最多的中药剂型为注射剂（31.03%）；仅有不到半数（46.48%）的文献报告了研究角度；以短期经济性评价为主（69.01%）；中文研究以成本-效果分析为主（70.00%），英文研究以成本-效用分析为主（54.55%）。文献质量评价的平均得分为11.02分，其中2篇文献（2.82%）质量为良好，9篇文献（12.68%）质量为合格，大多数文献（84.51%）质量不合格。中文文献平均得分9.98分，英文文献平均得分16.73分，后者质量明显优于前者。结论目前中药药物经济学研究主要存在对照组干预措施的选择缺乏科学性、成本测算不规范、研究时限选取不合理、健康产出指标的证据质量有待提高、评价方法的选择有待完善、阈值的选择缺乏科学依据等问题。为支持高水平中药药物经济学研究的实施与开展，政策制定者需创造良好的政策环境并制定符合中医药特点的药物经济学评价指南，以促进评价结果的应用转化。 |
| ABSTRACT： | OBJECTIVE To evaluate the quality of research literature on pharmacoeconomics of traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） in China from 2018 to 2022， to understand the development status and problems of TCM pharmacoeconomic research in China， and to provide a reference for future standardized research on this field. METHODS The systematic search of relevant databases at home and abroad was conducted to obtain the published literature on TCM pharmacoeconomic research in China from January 1， 2018 to November 21， 2022 to summarize the basic information of the literature， the research profile， the method and content of pharmacoeconomic evaluation and to evaluate the quality of the literature by using the CHEERS 2022 checklist； calculate the total literature score by counting the scores of the specific entries of each piece of literature and classifying the quality of the literature as excellent， good， qualified， and unqualified. RESULTS A total of 71 studies were included， involving 60 in Chinese and 11 in English， and 53.52% of the literature was supported by grants； the most studied TCM dosage form was injection （31.03%）； less than half （46.48%） of the literature reported the study angle； short-term economic evaluation was predominantly used （69.01%）； the Chinese studies were dominated by cost-effectiveness analyses （70.00%）， and the English studies were dominated by cost-utility analysis （54.55%）. The average score of literature quality evaluation was 11.02， with two （2.82%） of the literature being of good quality， nine （12.68%） of the literature being of qualified quality， and the majority of the literature （84.51%） being of unqualified quality. The average score of Chinese literature was 9.98， and the average score of English literature was 16.73， with the quality of the latter being significantly better than that of the former. CONCLUSIONS At present， the pharmacoeconomic researches of TCM mainly has problems such as lack of scientific selection of intervention in the control group， nonstandard cost measurement， unreasonable selection of research time limit， quality of evidence for health output indicators to be improved， selection of evaluation methods to be improved， and lack of scientific basis for threshold selection. In order to support the implementation and development of high-level pharmacoeconomics research on TCM， policymakers need to create a favorable policy environment and formulate pharmacoeconomic evaluation guidelines that meet the characteristics of TCM， so as to promote the application and transformation of evaluation results. |
| 期刊： | 2023年第34卷第19期 |
| 作者： | 李文爽；戴泽琦；孙庆冉；万楚川；廖星；席晓宇 |
| AUTHORS： | LI Wenshuang，DAI Zeqi，SUN Qingran，WAN Chuchuan，LIAO Xing，XI Xiaoyu |
| 关键字： | 中药；药物经济学；文献研究；质量评价 |
| KEYWORDS： | traditional Chinese medicine； pharmacoeconomics； literature research； quality evaluation |
| 阅读数： | 47 次 |
| 本月下载数： | 7 次 |
* 注：未经本站明确许可，任何网站不得非法盗链资源下载连接及抄袭本站原创内容资源!在此感谢您的支持与合作！
