药物经济学系统评价的再评价
|
摘要
目的对药物经济学研究的系统评价(pharm-SR)进行再评价。方法计算机检索PubMed、EMbase(Ovid)、The Cochrane Library、NHS EED(Ovid)、CENTRAL、Health Technology Assessment(HTA)Database、CNKI、WangFang Data、VIP和CBM数据库,搜集所有pharm-SR,检索时限均为建库至2018年5月6日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献和提取数据后,对发表期刊类型及影响因子、疾病类型、方法学质量评价结果等进行数据统计和频数分析,采用改良后的AMSTAR量表对pharm-SR的方法学质量进行评分。结果最终纳入143篇pharm-SR。自2000年以来pharm-SR发表数量在逐渐增加。其中,英国发文量较多(39.8%);pharm-SR主要发表在Health Technology Assessment和Pharmacoeconomics上;纳入文献中,以肿瘤相关的pharm-SR发表的文献数量最多(20.9%);每篇发表文献平均检索7.42±4.00个数据库,除检索常用数据库MEDLINE、EMbase和TheCochrane Library外,专业数据库主要为NHS EED和HTAD;对药物经济学研究的质量评价工具以BMJchecklist(20.15%)和the Drummond checklist(19.40%)为主。改良后的AMSTAR量表评价结果显示,pharm-SR的得分范围为2～10分,平均分为6.89±2.28分,条目的平均符合率为67.34%,总体方法学质量中等。结论 pharm-SR发表数量和期刊在逐年递增,且研究方法逐渐趋于统一和集中,但研究质量仍有待进一步的提高和完善。
Objectives To survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase(Ovid), NHS EED(Ovid), CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment(HTA) Database, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from inception to May 2018 to collect systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Data statistics and frequency analysis were then conducted on the basic characteristics of included literatures, which involves the publication journal type and influencing factors(IF), disease type, quality assessment tool, etc. The amended AMSTAR scale was used to assess the methodological quality of pharm-SR. Results One hundred and forty-three systematic reviews were included in the overview. The UK had a large number of publications(39.8%), which were mostly published in the Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics. Among the included literatures, most were evaluated tumor related pharmacoeconomics systematic reviews(20.8%). They searched on average 7.42±4.00 databases. The British Medical Journal checklist(20.15%) and the Drummond checklist(19.40) were the main tools for quality evaluation. The methodological qualities of these studies were not high. Conclusions The evidence shows that the number of systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic is increasing and research methodology is gradually unifying. However, the quality is still required to be further improved.
Objectives To survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase(Ovid), NHS EED(Ovid), CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment(HTA) Database, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from inception to May 2018 to collect systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Data statistics and frequency analysis were then conducted on the basic characteristics of included literatures, which involves the publication journal type and influencing factors(IF), disease type, quality assessment tool, etc. The amended AMSTAR scale was used to assess the methodological quality of pharm-SR. Results One hundred and forty-three systematic reviews were included in the overview. The UK had a large number of publications(39.8%), which were mostly published in the Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics. Among the included literatures, most were evaluated tumor related pharmacoeconomics systematic reviews(20.8%). They searched on average 7.42±4.00 databases. The British Medical Journal checklist(20.15%) and the Drummond checklist(19.40) were the main tools for quality evaluation. The methodological qualities of these studies were not high. Conclusions The evidence shows that the number of systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic is increasing and research methodology is gradually unifying. However, the quality is still required to be further improved.
引文
1Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, et al. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development:8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst, 2006, 4:20.
2 Benedicto AS, Ruiz VG. Inappropriate use of health resources and the trivialisation of medicine. Atencion Primaria, 2013, 45(5):274-277.
3Kanchanachitra C, Lindelow M, Johnston T, et al. Health in Southeast Asia 5 Human resources for health in southeast Asia:shortages, distributional challenges, and international trade in health services. Lancet, 2011, 377(9767):769-781.
4 Sun J, Luo H. Evaluation on equality and efficiency of health resources allocation and health services utilization in China. Int J Equity Health, 2017, 16(1):127.
5Yagudina RI, Kulikov AU, Serpik VG, et al. Concept of combining cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis in health care decision-making. Value Health Reg Issues, 2017, 13:61.
6 Cazarim MDS, Reis R, Wu O, et al. Development and validation of a pharmacoeconomic tool for decision making in the implementation of pharmaceutical care for hypertensive patients in the Brazilian public health system(SUS). Procedia Computer Science, 2017, 121:376-383.
7Simoens DS. Use of economic evaluation in decision making.Drugs, 2010, 70(15):1917-1926.
8 Mazumder D, Kapoor A, Gwatkin N, et al. Benchmarking health technology assessment(HTA)agencies for setting standards on pharmacoeconomic, pricing, evidence, and general submission requirements:development of a multidimensional rating scale.Value Health, 2015, 18(7):A854.
9Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, et al. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking(stp)13:preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking.Health Res Policy Syst, 2009, 7(S1):S3.
10 Phelps CE, Lakdawalla DN, Basu A, et al. Approaches to aggregation and decision making-a health economics approach:an ISPOR Special Task Force report. Value Health, 2018, 21(2):146-154.
11Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan:The FY2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations. Health Policy, 2017,:S0168851017301653.
12 Schuller Y, Hollak CEM, Biegstraaten M. The quality of economic evaluations of ultra-orphan drugs in Europe-a systematic review.Orphanet J Rare Dis, 2015, 10(1):92.
13Drummond MF. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals:science or marketing. Pharmacoeconomics, 1993, 3(1):86-86.
14 李迅,曹卉娟(译).系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目:PRISMA声明.中西医结合学报, 2009, 7(9):889-896.
15Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ, 1996,313(7052):275-283.
16Listersharp D, Mcdonaugh M, Khan K, et al. A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer. Health Technology Assessment, 2000, 4(17):1-113.
17 孙鑫,杨焕,王莉,等.中国治疗慢性乙型肝炎的成本-效果的系统评价.中国循证医学杂志, 2005, 5(11):833-845.
18熊鹰.三种药物治疗良性前列腺增生症的卫生技术评估.四川:四川大学, 2005.
19 熊俊,陈日新.系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR.中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9):1084-1089.
20Doran CM. Critique of an economic evaluation using the drummond checklist. Applied Health Economics Health Policy,2010, 8(6):357.
21 Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Critical Care, 2005, 9(5):R575-R582.
2 Benedicto AS, Ruiz VG. Inappropriate use of health resources and the trivialisation of medicine. Atencion Primaria, 2013, 45(5):274-277.
3Kanchanachitra C, Lindelow M, Johnston T, et al. Health in Southeast Asia 5 Human resources for health in southeast Asia:shortages, distributional challenges, and international trade in health services. Lancet, 2011, 377(9767):769-781.
4 Sun J, Luo H. Evaluation on equality and efficiency of health resources allocation and health services utilization in China. Int J Equity Health, 2017, 16(1):127.
5Yagudina RI, Kulikov AU, Serpik VG, et al. Concept of combining cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis in health care decision-making. Value Health Reg Issues, 2017, 13:61.
6 Cazarim MDS, Reis R, Wu O, et al. Development and validation of a pharmacoeconomic tool for decision making in the implementation of pharmaceutical care for hypertensive patients in the Brazilian public health system(SUS). Procedia Computer Science, 2017, 121:376-383.
7Simoens DS. Use of economic evaluation in decision making.Drugs, 2010, 70(15):1917-1926.
8 Mazumder D, Kapoor A, Gwatkin N, et al. Benchmarking health technology assessment(HTA)agencies for setting standards on pharmacoeconomic, pricing, evidence, and general submission requirements:development of a multidimensional rating scale.Value Health, 2015, 18(7):A854.
9Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, et al. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking(stp)13:preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking.Health Res Policy Syst, 2009, 7(S1):S3.
10 Phelps CE, Lakdawalla DN, Basu A, et al. Approaches to aggregation and decision making-a health economics approach:an ISPOR Special Task Force report. Value Health, 2018, 21(2):146-154.
11Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan:The FY2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations. Health Policy, 2017,:S0168851017301653.
12 Schuller Y, Hollak CEM, Biegstraaten M. The quality of economic evaluations of ultra-orphan drugs in Europe-a systematic review.Orphanet J Rare Dis, 2015, 10(1):92.
13Drummond MF. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals:science or marketing. Pharmacoeconomics, 1993, 3(1):86-86.
14 李迅,曹卉娟(译).系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目:PRISMA声明.中西医结合学报, 2009, 7(9):889-896.
15Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ, 1996,313(7052):275-283.
16Listersharp D, Mcdonaugh M, Khan K, et al. A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer. Health Technology Assessment, 2000, 4(17):1-113.
17 孙鑫,杨焕,王莉,等.中国治疗慢性乙型肝炎的成本-效果的系统评价.中国循证医学杂志, 2005, 5(11):833-845.
18熊鹰.三种药物治疗良性前列腺增生症的卫生技术评估.四川:四川大学, 2005.
19 熊俊,陈日新.系统评价/Meta分析方法学质量的评价工具AMSTAR.中国循证医学杂志, 2011, 11(9):1084-1089.
20Doran CM. Critique of an economic evaluation using the drummond checklist. Applied Health Economics Health Policy,2010, 8(6):357.
21 Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Critical Care, 2005, 9(5):R575-R582.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |