ObjectiveTo introduce economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design, and to provide references for related research and decision-making. MethodsA case analysis was conducted on economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design, which was issued by Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) in the Economic Guidance Report. Moreover, both the advantages and disadvantages of the methods were analyzed in accordance with the characteristics of basket trials. ResultsPooled analysis and tumor-specific analysis were two methods frequently employed in the case analysis. However, great uncertainties were available in both of them. The uncertainty of the former was mainly reflected in the heterogeneity of the targeted population, while the uncertainty of the latter was mainly shown in the insufficient sample size of the subgroup. ConclusionCurrently, economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design are immature. Thus, researchers are required to explore the methods of innovation evaluation with lower uncertainty; reimbursement decision-makers should fully consider the uncertainty of evaluation results and enterprises should collect the real-world data for the demands of evaluation to promote the reasonable allocation of healthcare resources in China.
Objective To evaluate the quality of evidence of systematic reviews or meta-analyses regarding outcomes in nursing field in China using the Grade system, so as to get known of the status of the quality of evidence and promote the application of the evaluation of the quality of evidence of systematic reviews. Methods The quality of evidence regarding the included outcomes was input, extracted and qualitatively graded, using GRADEpro 3.6 software. Then, we carefully analyzed and elaborated the factors of downgrading and upgrading that affects the quality of evidence in the process of evaluation. Results 53 systematic reviews or meta-analyses involving 188 outcomes were identified and evaluated. The results showed that high, moderate, low and very low levels of quality of evidence were 2.7%, 27.1%, 51.1%, and 19.1%, respectively; and low-level quality of evidence accounted for the most. Conclusion The quality of evidence produced by systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China is poor and urgently needs improvement. The reviewers should abide by the methodological standards in the process of making systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The quality of evidence in terms of each outcome should be evaluated and fully reported.
With the increase in the number of single-arm clinical trials and lack of head-to-head clinical studies, the application of unadjusted indirect comparisons and network meta-analysis methods has been limited. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is an alternative method to fully utilize individual patient data from one study and balance potential bias caused by baseline characteristics differences in different trials through propensity score matching with aggregated data reported in other studies, and complete the comparison of the efficacy between target interventions. This study introduced the concept and principles of MAIC. In addition, we demonstrated how to use the anchored MAIC method based on R language for survival data, which has been widely used in anti-cancer drug evaluation. This study aimed to provide an alternative method to inform evidence-based decisions.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of Chinese herbal enema in ileus patients. MethodsThe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs about Chinese herbal enema and gastrointestinal intubation versus western medicines in the treatment of ileus disease was searched in PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2013), CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from the date of their establishment to July 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1. ResultsA total of 27 RCTs and 3 quasi-RCTs involving 3 074 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the Chinese herbal enema and gastrointestinal intubation group was superior to the control group in raising the total clinical effective rate (OR=4.69, 95%CI 3.70 to 5.94, P < 0.000 01), as well as shortening the hospitalization time (SMD=-1.19, 95%CI-1.42 to-0.96, P < 0.000 01), time of anus exhaust (SMD=-1.52, 95%CI-1.76 to-1.28, P < 0.000 01), defecation (SMD=-2.27, 95%CI-3.43 to-1.11, P=0.000 1), time of gastric tube indwelling (SMD=-1.56, 95%CI-1.86 to-1.27, P < 0.000 01), and symptoms complete resolution (SMD=-0.74, 95%CI-1.11 to-0.37, P < 0.000 1), all with significant differences. ConclusionChinese herbal enema and gastrointestinal intubation is more beneficial than western medicine alone for ileus. Due to limited quality of the included studies, the abovementioned conclusion still needs to be verified by conducting more high quality blinding RCTs.