OBJECTIVES: Recently, a number of pharmacoeconomic evaluations (PE) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatments were published in China. Our objective was to examine the compliance of these PE studies with the ISPOR’s Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). METHODS: The literature search was conducted using three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang and CQvip). PE studies assessing treatments for NSCLC in China were included. The CHEERS checklist (24 items) was used to assess the reporting quality of those studies. Two reviewers performed the evaluation independently, with disagreement solved by discussion or by a third reviewer. RESULTS: There were 57 studies included between 2003 and 2015, of which, 33 were published in the Chinese core journals of science and technology. Further, 52 of the 57 cost-effectiveness/cost-minimisation analyses were either trial-based or observational study-based, while the remaining 5 were model-based analyses. On average, PE studies met 32% of CHEERS items, ranging from 17% to 79%. Almost 20% of CHEERS items were not applicable to the PE studies (4%-21%). When considering applicable items only, the PE studies met 40% of items (18% to 83%). Items related to “measurement of effectiveness”, “characterising uncertainty” and “conflict of interest” were not met by any PE study, whereas the item “choice of health outcomes” was met by almost all PE studies (95%). Items related to “characterising heterogeneity”, “measurement and valuation of preference based outcomes” and 5 items related to “analytical models” could not be applied by almost all PE studies (>90%). When considering applicable items only, each item was met by 22% PE studies on average (0 to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of the Chinese-language PE publications in NSCLC was found to be low, which appears to reflect on the quality of analyses. This limits their usefulness for decision-making.