Hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) is an indispensable method and measure to improve the level of fine management and establish a value-based medical service system. This paper introduces the differences between HB-HTA and HTA, four organizational management models, assessment process, assessment steps and HB-HTA reporting standardization, which provides a reference for evaluating organizations.
ObjectiveTo understand the current status of research methods in disease burden systematic reviews, identify limitations and shortcomings of existing research methods, and provide suggestions to address relevant issues. MethodsA computer search of the PubMed database was conducted to collect systematic reviews on disease burden, with search limits set from database inception to December 21, 2023. Two independent researchers utilized Endnote 20 for literature screening and Excel 2019 for data extraction and descriptive analysis. ResultsA total of 216 articles were included in the review, revealing a year-on-year increase in the number of systematic reviews on disease burden since 2004. The journal PharmacoEconomics published the most articles (n=22), while research on certain infectious diseases and parasitic infections was the most prevalent (n=51). Only 31 articles provided a complete account of the entire systematic review process. The reporting rates for inclusion/exclusion criteria, information retrieval, literature screening, and statistical analysis steps were all 100%. However, the rate of protocol registration was relatively low at 19%. Eighty-eight percent of the articles utilized software such as Excel and Epidata for data extraction, yet only 32% adhered to the reproducibility principles outlined in AMSTAR-2. In terms of quality assessment, 105 articles underwent evaluation, with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa scale being the most commonly used quality assessment tools for epidemiological studies, while economic studies preferred the Drummond checklist (n=9). Regarding the details of inclusion/exclusion criteria, only 53% of studies reported their study design in detail, and less than one-sixth provided a comprehensive description of the interventions and control measures. Statistical analyses predominantly employed qualitative methods (80%), with quantitative analyses comprising a minority (20%), all of which were conducted using meta-analysis techniques, primarily utilizing R software (n=15). ConclusionThe number of systematic reviews on disease burden has shown a yearly increasing trend; however, most studies have failed to comprehensively adhere to the fundamental processes of systematic reviews, significantly limiting their quality. Currently, the primary issues include a lack of protocol registration, incomplete supplementary searches, mismatched quality assessment tools, and insufficiently comprehensive outcome measures. To address these challenges, it is essential to develop a methodological guideline for systematic reviews on disease burden that incorporates these concerns. Such a guideline would standardize researchers' practices and ensure strict adherence to systematic review methodologies, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor of the research and its support for clinical decision-making.
Based on the principles and methods of systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials, systematic review of economic analyses can integrate information from multiple economic studies which focus on the same clinical questions. It can also provide important insights by systematically examining how differences among studies lead to different results. Generally, there are seven steps to conduct such a review: 1) formulating questions; 2) establishing eligibility criteria; 3) searching and selecting eligible economic analyses; 4) assessing the validity of economic analyses; 5) acquiring data; 6) analyzing and synthesizing data; and 7) presenting results. Owing to the specificity of economic analyses, many methodological challenges exist, including the varieties of economic models, analytic perspectives, time horizons, and uncertainty and sensitivity analysis among different economic analyses. This may cause difficulties for critical assessment of the economic analyses.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the research issues related to evidence quality grading methods for public health decision making. MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies related to the application of evidence quality grading methods for public health decision making from inception to December 2022. The questions were constructed according to the SPIDER model. The quality of the included literature was evaluated by using the CASP checklist, and a three-level interpretation analysis of the questions on the application of quality rating methods for public health decision making was conducted using the thematic synthesis method to establish a pool of question entries. ResultsA total of 14 papers were included, covering seven countries. GRADE was the commonly used method for grading the quality of evidence. CASP evaluation results showed eight high quality studies, four medium quality studies and two low quality studies. The thematic synthesis method summarized 13 question entries in 7 categories. ConclusionThe existing methodology for grading the quality of evidence for public health decision making suffers from the diversity of evidence sources and the underestimation of the level of evidence from complex intervention studies.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of animal experiments published in high impact journals, in order to provide references for improving the quality of animal experiments.MethodsCSCD and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect intervening primordial animal experiments from 2014 to August, 2016. Four reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies by using SYRCLE tool.ResultsA total of 1 999 animal experiments were included. The cited frequency of more than 90% studies were ≤5 times, and of which 52.53% studies were zero. The results of SYRCLE evaluation showed that 54.55% of sub items rated as "low risk" were less than 30%. And 84.62% of them were less than 10%.ConclusionThere are defeet in methodological quality of animal experiments either domestic or abroad. The problems of domestic researches in implementation bias, measurement bias and loss of access bias are particularly obvious. The coincidence rates of "low risk" are much lower than those of abroad studies. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to take specific measures to popularize SYRCLE tool to effectively guide the development of animal experiments and improve the design and implementation of animal experiments.
Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of corticosteroid hormone as an auxiliary means for the treatment of severe pneumonia which were published from establishment of the databases to October 25th, 2018 were searched. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to evaluate the quality of literature reports. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, all of which were non-Cochrane systematic reviews. In terms of methodological quality assessed by AMSTAR-2, there was no plan in all studies; only one study explained the reasons for inclusion in the study type; eight studies did not describe the dose and follow-up time of the intervention/control measures in detail; three studies did not indicate the evaluation tools and did not describe the risk bias; six studies did not explicitly examine publication bias. In terms of reporting quality assessed by PRISMA, all studies had no pre-registered study protocol or registration number; thirteen studies did not describe the specific amount of articles retrieved from each database; three studies did not present their retrieval strategies or excluded reasons in detail; no funding sources were identified in included studies; eight studies reported both whether the study was funded and whether there was a conflict of interest. Conclusions At present, there are many systematic review/meta-analysis studies on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia, and the overall quality of the study has been gradually improved. However, the common problems in the study are relatively prominent. The follow-up period and dose of intervention in the study of severe pneumonia are different, so the baseline is difficult to be unified. Suggestions: strengthening the training of researchers, standardize the research process, and report articles in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement; subgroup analysis being conducted according to the dose and duration of the hormone.
The necessity and methods of systematic review or Meta-analysis of observational studies were introduced. The difference between the systematic review or Meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials was also described.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese medicine (TCM) formulated granules published in core journals in China. MethodsComputerized searches were conducted in CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases. The publicly published RCTs of TCM formulated granules were collected, with sources from Peking University Core, CSSCI and EI. The following information was extracted: including title, the first author, the journals name, type of disease, year of publication, and source of drug. The included studies were evaluated using the CONSORT extension for CHM formulas (CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017), which included 25 items from title, abstract and keywords, introduction, research methods, steps, results, discussion, and other information. ResultsA total of 125 papers were included, which mainly included digestive system diseases (n=25), respiratory system diseases (n=17), and circulatory system diseases (n=17). The results showed that the overall reporting quality of RCTs of TCM formulated granules was poor. After the publication of the CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017, the reporting quality of RCTs of TCM formulated granules had no significant changes, while some items were still reported with poor quality. For example, 42.2% of RCTs did not adequately report how to generate allocation sequence, 93.3% of RCTs did not adequately report allocation concealment, and 62.2% of RCTs did not adequately report how to solve the missing data. ConclusionThe quality of RCTs reports on TCM formula granules published in Chinese journals still needs to be improved. It is recommended that researchers, journals and reviewers attach importance to the application of CONSORT-CHM formula throughout the whole process of paper writing. In the future, more scientific and detailed requirements should be put forward for trial design and reporting standards in line with the characteristics of clinical trials of TCM formula granules.
Methodological quality and transferability will be important issues for the credibility and usefulness of both published studies and administrative methods for evaluating the socio-economic value of marketed medicines in China. This paper critically examines factors commonly contributing to, or inhibiting, the quality and transferability of socio-economic evidence of the value of medicines, with specific reference to the Chinese community. It discusses appropriate approaches to design, performance, and reporting of published economic evaluation studies, as well as guides on assessment of quality of economic evaluations and recommends two internationally established methods that may be suitable for training in this setting.