Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38693514›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2024

A systematic review on reporting quality of economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs in China national reimbursement drug list.

Shi-Yi Bao, Liu Liu, Fu-Ming Li, Yi Yang, Yan Wei, Hui Shao, Jian Ming, Jun-Tao Yan, Ying-Yao Chen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Shi-Yi BaoNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Liu LiuNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Fu-Ming LiNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Yi YangNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Yan WeiNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Hui ShaoCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0496, USA.
Jian MingNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Jun-Tao YanNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Ying-Yao ChenNHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. yychen@shmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to examine the reporting quality of existing economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) included in China National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 (CHEERS 2013).

methodsWe performed a systematic literature research through 7 databases to identify published economic evaluations for GLDs included in the China NRDL up to March 2021. Reporting quality of identified studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the CHEERS checklist. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to examine the association between reporting quality and characteristics of the identified studies.

resultsWe have identified 24 studies, which evaluated six GLDs types. The average score rate of the included studies was 77.41% (SD:13.23%, Range 47.62%-91.67%). Among all the required reporting items, characterizing heterogeneity (score rate = 4.17%) was the least satisfied item. Among six parts of CHEERS, results part scored least at 0.55 (score rate = 54.79%) because of the incompleteness of characterizing uncertainty. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test showed that model choice, journal type, type of economic evaluations, and study perspective were associated with the reporting quality of the studies.

conclusionsThere remains room to improve the reporting quality of economic evaluations for GLDs in NRDL. Checklists such as CHEERS should be widely used to improve the reporting quality of economic researches in China.

Indexed as

Hypoglycemic AgentsChinaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNegotiatingReimbursement MechanismsHypoglycemic AgentsEconomic evaluationsGlucose-lowering drugsNational Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL)Quality evaluationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38693514
PMCPMC11064232

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.