ReviewHealth economics review2025
Impact of China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations on study quality: a systematic review of economic evaluations in China.
Review in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Internet of Things-Based Management of Home Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Hypercapnic Chronic Respiratory Failure: Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- The economic impacts of the multifaceted stroke 1-2-0 educational campaign in China.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGiven 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsA 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).
conclusionsChina 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.
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.