Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34384428›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Impact on decision making framework for medicine purchasing in Chinese public hospital decision-making: determining the value of five dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Yun Bao, Bei Gao, Min Meng, Bin Ge, Yan Yang, Chunchun Ding, Bingyin Shi, Limin Tian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yun BaoInstitute of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Gansu, China.
Bei GaoDepartment of Pharmacy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Gansu, China.
Min MengDepartment of Pharmacy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Gansu, China.
Bin GeDepartment of Pharmacy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Gansu, China.
Yan YangDepartment of Pharmacy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Gansu, China.
Chunchun DingDepartment of Pharmacy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Gansu, China.
Bingyin ShiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, No.277 Yanta West Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. shibingy@126.com.
Limin TianDepartment of Endocrinology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China. tlm6666@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4769-4375
Gansu Provincial Hospital · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNGansu Meteorological Bureau · CN

Funding

Lanzhou Science and Technology Development Guiding Plan Project 2019-ZD-104National Key R&D Program of China 2018YFC1311502National Natural Science Foundation of China 81760144
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedicine purchasing in Chinese public hospitals is decided by the hospital Pharmacy Management Committee (PMC), that is complex, subjective and requires efficient approaches to ensure transparency and consistency for the factors being considered. This study aimed to use the Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) framework to assess medicine in these hospitals. In this study anti-diabetic drugs DPP-4 inhibitors, which work by inhibiting the activation of the Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, were appraised.

methodsFollowing EVIDEM methodology (EVIDEM-10th), we convened an appraisal group and asked each individual to express their perspectives by assigning weights to each criterion. A systematic literature search for information of each criterion of five DPP-4 inhibitors was completed. Then the appraisal group scored for each criterion of the five DPP-4 inhibitors. The estimated value of the five DPP-4 inhibitors was obtained by Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) which combined individual weighting of each criterion with individual scoring for each intervention in each criterion.

resultsBy assigning weights, the most important criterion was the quality of evidence (4.01±0.52), and that the comparative cost consequences-non-medical cost was the least important criterion (2.87±1.03). Criteria included disease severity, size of the affected population, comparative effectiveness, type of therapeutic/preventive benefit and cost of intervention, all of which were assigned the same weight of 3.58. After MCDA, the overall value orders for each DPP-4 inhibitor included Sitagliptin (0.45), Linagliptin (0.44), Vildagliptin (0.43), Alogliptin (0.42) and Saxagliptin (0.40).

conclusionsBased on EVIDEM framework and MCDA, we found that overall value of five DPP-4 inhibitors was similar. It is feasible to use the EVIDEM framework and MCDA in purchasing medicine for Chinese public hospitals.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV InhibitorsChinaDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesDipeptidyl Peptidase 4Hospitals, PublicHumansDipeptidyl Peptidase 4Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV InhibitorsEvidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) frameworkHospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA)Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)

Identifiers

PMID34384428
PMCPMC8361840
OpenAlexW3177509452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.