SynthesisPloS one2021
An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir- ledipasvir for Hepatitis C treatment: a systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Costs of Drug-Associated Acute Kidney Injury and Potential Cost Savings With Nephrotoxin Stewardship Prevention Strategies.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Characteristics and Quality Appraisal of the Economic Evaluations Done in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Pooled it
- Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review.CJEM · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of cost‑effectiveness analyses of sequential treatment for osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of Large Language Model Performance in Assessing Health Economic Study Quality.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness decision modelling in social care: exploring the why, the how, and the what next.NIHR open research · 2025Review
- Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations and Cost Studies of the Treatment of Psoriasis, Atopic Dermatitis, and Chronic Urticaria.Dermatology and therapy · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe systematic review of economic evaluations plays a critical role in making well-informed decisions about competing healthcare interventions. The quality of these systematic reviews varies due to the lack of internationally recognized methodological evaluation standards.
methodsNine English and Chinese databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS economic evaluation database (NHSEED) (Ovid), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WangFang, VIP Chinese Science & Technology Periodicals (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the literature was measured with modified AMSTAR. Data were narrative synthesized.
results165 systematic reviews were included. The overall methodological quality of the literature was moderate according to the AMSTAR scale. In these articles, thirteen quality assessment tools and 32 author self-defined criteria were used. The three most widely used tools were the Drummond checklist (19.4%), the BMJ checklist (15.8%), the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (12.7%). Others included the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), the checklist of Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Philips checklist, the World Health Organization (WHO) checklist, the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, Spanish and Chinese guidelines. The quantitative scales used in these literature were the QHES and PQAQ.
conclusionsEvidence showed that pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews' methodology remained to be improved, and the quality assessment criteria were gradually unified. Multiple scales can be used in combination to evaluate the quality of economic research in different settings and types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.