QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF PUBLISHED HEALTH ECONOMIC ANALYSES FROM CHINA
Author(s)
Kaas C1, Jing L2, Bao Y3, Hemels M41Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2Novo Nordisk (China) Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd, Beijing, China, 3China Center for Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Beijing, China, 4Novo Nordisk A/S, bagsværd, Denmark
OBJECTIVES: Good quality health economic (HE) analysis could be an important tool in guiding (cost) efficiency in health care development in China. To review HE analyses from China and assessing their quality using a standardised questionnaire. METHODS: Search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (1964-2008) using key words: China, cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-minimisation analysis (CMA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and cost analysis (CA). Included were original HE evaluations examining a (medical) treatment/programme in a Chinese setting (including Hong Kong and Taiwan) describing costs and/or consequences in English or Chinese language. Quality was independently assessed by 4 raters using a 13 items checklist derived from previously published HE assessments. Obtainable scores were 0 (“Incorrect”), 1 (“Not Reported”), 2 (“Doubtful”), 3 (“Acceptable”), 4 (“Correct”) or N/A if not applicable. Post-hoc analyses were carried out to determine a time trend in quality or whether the observed differences in quality scores between languages existed. RESULTS: 36 articles were included for assessment: 17 CEAs, 7 CBAs, 7 CUAs, and 5 CAs. No article used CMA. Majority of the evaluations was conducted in mainland China (64%), 31% in Hong Kong, and 5% in Taiwan. Mean quality score of all articles was ‘Acceptable’ (mean=3.1; SD=0.58) ranging from 2.0-4.0. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that English publications had a significant higher (; p<0.0005, Mann-Whitney U test) quality (mean=3.5; SD=0.45) compared to Chinese (mean=2.8; SD=0.46). No significant time trend existed. CONCLUSIONS: HE analyses from China were considered ‘Acceptable’ and their quality was similar to previous assessments. Post-hoc analysis suggested a significant difference between analyses published in English compared to Chinese. This study’s major limitation is that low quality scores may be caused by poor reporting rather than poor research. Further research is needed to determine the underlying reasons of the quality and examine the impact of analyses on decision-making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2009-10, ISPOR Europe 2009, Paris, France
Value in Health, Vol. 12, No. 7 (October 2009)
Code
PMC16
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Multiple Diseases