OBJECTIVES: To investigate the scientific research quality level of pharmacoeconomics evaluation literature in China. METHODS: From 2009 to 2013, a total of 1127 papers published in academic journals in China were evaluated in terms of an assessment framework of 5 first-class indexes and 24 second-class indexes. The score of 1 was given if the literature reported the information required by the index, while 0 was given without reporting. Quality of overall papers and different types of authors, with/without funding sources and evaluation technique type were assessed. RESULTS: The average score for all sampled papers was only 0.347 (SD＝0.476). The quality of papers with stating funding sources (P＝0.006), applying cost-utility analysis (P＝0.003) and multiple analysis techniques (P＝0.061) received statistically significant higher scores. In the total sample, most literatures were about cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The problems of the low quality papers were mostly unclear interest conflict of authors, no representative samples, ambiguous criterion of comparators types, unreasonable cost calculation, inaccurate explanation of outcomes and lack of uncertainty analysis, etc. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific research quality level of pharmacoeconomics evaluation literature in China is low. It is necessary to further standardize and optimize pharmacoeconomics study in China in order to obtain reliable assessment results for guiding practice.