ObjectivesTo survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations.MethodsDatabases 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.ResultsOne 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
ObjectivesTo establish statistical analysis and result reporting model for evaluation of the applicability of the clinical guidelines. We conducted an empirical study for clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes in China.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted to select 6 to 8 doctors in geriatric, endocrinology, nephrology or related departments from medical institutions. The questionnaire was filled by doctors at a conference and electronic questionnaires were sent to those who did not attend the conference. Descriptive analysis was carried out for characteristics of evaluators, scores of each dimension, access to guidelines and factors affecting implementation. The Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test and Nemenyi test were used for multi-group comparison and pairwise comparison. Multiple linear regressions with the stepwise strategy were used to screen out the association factors.ResultsA total of 725 questionnaires were collected in this survey. There were 722 valid questionnaires with an active recovery rate of 99.6%. The results showed the accessibility score was lowest and the acceptability score was highest. The results of multi-group comparison and multiple linear regression analysis showed that familiarity with the guidelines was the influencing factor of each score (P<0.05). The guidelines were primarily obtained from academic conferences (52.1%), WeChat (45.4%), and biomedical literature databases (43.5%). Among the evaluators, 44 (41.9%) believed that there were implementation obstacles in the guidelines, among which 136 (18.8%), 134 (18.5%) and 133 (18.4%) believed that implementation obstacles were medical personnel factor, patient factor and environmental factor.ConclusionsIn this study, a data analysis and result report model for the assessment of the applicability of the guidelines is established to provide evidence for the development/revision of the guidelines.
ObjectivesTo establish statistical analysis and result reporting model for evaluation of the applicability of the clinical guidelines. We conducted empirical study for clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of renal transplantation rejection in China.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted to select 16 medical institutions in China which had carried out kidney transplantations. In each medical institution, 6 to 8 clinicians from the kidney transplantation department or related departments were selected to complete the questionnaire. Descriptive analysis was carried out for characteristics of evaluators, scores of each dimension, access to guidelines and factors affecting implementation. The Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and Nemenyi test were used for multi-group comparison and pairwise comparison. Multiple linear regression with stepwise strategy were used to screen out the association factors.ResultsIn this survey, 128 questionnaires were distributed, in which 105 valid questionnaires were collected, and the recovery rate was 82.03%. The subjects of this survey were all kidney transplant clinicians from public tertiary hospitals, with an average 10.95 years of working time. The results showed the accessibility score was lowest and the acceptability score was highest. The results of multi-group comparison and multiple linear regression analysis showed that familiarity with the guidelines was the influencing factor of each score (P<0.05). The guidelines were primarily obtained from biomedical literature database (73.3%), academic journals (55.2%) and academic conferences (55.2%). Among the evaluators, 44 (41.9%) believed that there were implementation obstacles in the guidelines, among which 40 (38.1%) believed that implementation obstacles were environmental factors.ConclusionsThe applicability of clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of renal transplantation rejection in China is adequate. However, the publicity of the guideline requires improvement. As the guideline is updated, consideration should be given to including access to the guideline, adding free public information promotion, and familiarizing clinicians with the guidelines through training programs to promote application of the guideline.
ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applicability evaluation tool, a preliminary revised tool, by using it to appraise specific clinical guidelines.MethodsMedical staffs were sampled from relevant departments in domestic medical institutions to use tool to evaluate the two guidelines. Spearman-Brown coefficient of odd-even split-half method and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability. The convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlation analysis and correlation coefficient comparison hypothesis test, and the structural validity was investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation.ResultsThe split-half reliability of the evaluation tool was 0.86, and the Cronbach's coefficient of the whole tool and each dimension were greater than 0.7 for two guidelines. The success rates of tool convergent and discriminant validity calibration were 100%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ2 and df were 3.38 and 2.46, the comparative fit index (CFI) were 0.872 and 0.974, the goodness of fit index (GFI) were 0.954 and 0.983, and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were 0.846 and 0.959 for two guidelines respectively. Both standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. Both P values of RMSEA hypothesis test were greater than 0.05.ConclusionsThe evaluation scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the applicability of CPGs, which should be further evaluated in practical applications in the future.