IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v15y2025i1d10.1186_s13561-025-00650-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations on study quality: a systematic review of economic evaluations in China

Author

Listed:
  • Shihuan Cao

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Wanxian Liang

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Longgang Central Hospital of Shenzhen)

  • Changhao Liang

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Huansen Lin

    (Changping Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine)

  • Chenxi Gao

    (Northwestern Polytechnical University)

  • Lujia Yang

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Yuming Liu

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences)

  • Yusi Suo

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Kexin Liu

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Yunzheng Chen

    (The Second Affiliated Hospital of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Lining Zhang

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Hanfei Wang

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Han Wang

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

  • Xuejing Jin

    (Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
    Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine)

Abstract

Objective Given the critical role of pharmacoeconomics in supporting decision-making and the urgent need to address the study quality of economic evaluations (EEs), this study aimed to analyse whether the China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations (China PE Guidelines, 4 versions) improved the study quality of EEs and summarize existing methodological issues of EEs in China. Methods We searched 4 Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc) and included original EEs since 2016 in China. The quality assessment included 6 dimensions and was conducted using the framework of China PE Guidelines 2020. Study quality was compared between studies referencing and not referencing the China PE Guidelines, studies published before and after the China PE Guidelines 2020, and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and non-TCM studies. Results A total of 3,046 studies were included. Most studies did not report the study perspective (76.8%). Individual-level data-based studies were the most common type (75.0%), with the characteristic of a short time horizon. There were 2,044 studies reporting time horizon, and 437 studies reported discounting rate among 722 studies with time horizon longer than 1 year. And 2,484 studies measured direct cost only. Clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were the most commonly used primary outcomes (81.5%). Most of cost-effectiveness analysis was used (71.4%), and approximately half of the studies did not conduct incremental analysis or uncertainty analysis (52.6% and 55.6%, respectively). The quality of studies referencing any of the 4 China PE Guidelines (435 studies) was better in all six assessment dimensions, and the study quality improved after the release of China PE Guidelines 2020 (686 studies) in most included dimensions. Whether before or after the release of the China PE Guidelines 2020, the quality of TCM studies (459 studies) was better than that of non-TCM studies (2587 studies). Conclusions China PE Guidelines have improved the study quality of EEs in China. To better support decision-making, the quality of EE remains to be improved, especially in terms of the study perspective, time horizon, cost identification scope and discounting aspects.

Suggested Citation

  • Shihuan Cao & Wanxian Liang & Changhao Liang & Huansen Lin & Chenxi Gao & Lujia Yang & Yuming Liu & Yusi Suo & Kexin Liu & Yunzheng Chen & Lining Zhang & Hanfei Wang & Han Wang & Xuejing Jin, 2025. "Impact of China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations on study quality: a systematic review of economic evaluations in China," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00650-7
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-025-00650-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-025-00650-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-025-00650-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00650-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.