A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Pharmacoeconomic Publications for China Compared to Internationally: Is the Quality of Evidence-Base Sufficient for Health Technology Assessment?

TL;DR

This study compares the quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China with international standards, finding room for improvement in reporting and methodology.

Contribution

The paper provides a systematic review and quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic publications in China using the CHEERS checklist, comparing them to international standards.

Findings

Chinese pharmacoeconomic publications have an average quality score of 61.0% based on the CHEERS checklist.

Chinese studies scored lower than international ones in areas like health economic analysis plan and patient engagement.

Quality has improved since 2018 but still lags behind international standards.

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations are becoming more important in China, and their research quality directly impacts government decisions, deserving extra attention. To summarize the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications for China compared to internationally and to identify areas for improvement both from a China-specific and international perspective.

First, we conducted a systematic review of pharmacoeconomic publications for China, with subsequent reporting quality assessment based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Second, we conducted an umbrella review of pharmacoeconomic publications internationally which used a similar quality assessment. We extracted the CHEERS checklist scores for each study and converted them to percentages to facilitate comparison of results.

CHEERS 2022 instrument was used to evaluate the quality of 154 pharmacoeconomic publications by Chinese scholars. Across these articles, the average quality score was 61.0%, indicating a moderate level of quality on average. There were 27 (17.5%) high-quality articles, 85 moderate quality articles (55.2%) and 42 low-quality (27.3%) articles. Out of 28 scoring items, those included in the methods section such as: health economic analysis plan, characterizing heterogeneity, characterizing distributional effects, approach to engagement with patients and others affected by the study, got low scores. In addition to the generally lower scores of international articles on items 9 (Time horizon), 18 (Characterizing heterogeneity) and 24 (Effect of uncertainty), Chinese articles also scored lower than international articles on items included in the methods and other relevant information section, eg, health economic analysis plan, perspective, discount rate, analytics and assumptions, characterizing distributional effects, approach to engagement with patients and others affected by the study, source of funding, and conflicts of interest.

The quality of China’s pharmacoeconomic publications has been improving year by year since the establishment of the National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) in 2018, but there is still a quality gap with similar international publications which requires further focus and improvement in study conduct and reporting standards for the evidence-base to be sufficient for health technology assessment (HTA).

Figures