MI Xue 1,2,3,4 , LI Jialian 1,2,3 , CHEN Min 1,2,3 , ZENG Linan 1,2,3 , HUANG Zongyao 1,2,3,5 , SONG Haoxin 1,2,3,5 , ZHANG Lingli 1,2,3
  • 1. Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;
  • 2. Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;
  • 3. Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;
  • 4. West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;
  • 5. West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;
ZHANG Lingli, Email: zhanglingli@scu.edu.cn
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

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.

Citation: MI Xue, LI Jialian, CHEN Min, ZENG Linan, HUANG Zongyao, SONG Haoxin, ZHANG Lingli. The overview of pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(2): 212-217. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201808144 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Quality assessment of systematic reviews for acupuncture to treat polycystic ovary syndrome
  • Next Article

    Development of a checklist for assessing credibility of cohort studies on effects of oral anticoagulants treatments for atrial fibrillation