我国肿瘤领域经济学研究方法学质量评价

• 药物经济学 • 上一篇

我国肿瘤领域经济学研究方法学质量评价

刘芳芳,姜红,卓玛拉措,赵丽婷,何耀,张素华,田金徽

兰州大学公共卫生学院兰州,兰州大学公共卫生学院兰州,兰州大学公共卫生学院兰州,兰州大学公共卫生学院兰州,兰州大学公共卫生学院兰州;兰州大学循证医学中心兰州,兰州大学公共卫生学院兰州,兰州大学循证医学中心兰州

收稿日期:2014-08-02 修回日期:2014-09-25 出版日期:2014-12-25 发布日期:2014-12-25
基金资助:
2011年兰州大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助（编号：lzjbky2011-113）

Methodological Quality Assessment of Economics Research of Cancer Published in Chinese

School of Public Health of Lanzhou University,School of Public Health of Lanzhou University,School of Public Health of Lanzhou University,School of Public Health of Lanzhou University,School of Public Health of Lanzhou University;China;Evidence-Based Medi

Received:2014-08-02 Revised:2014-09-25 Online:2014-12-25 Published:2014-12-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：运用卫生经济学研究质量评价(QHES)量表评价我国肿瘤领域药物经济学研究的方法学质量。方法：计算机检索中国学术期刊网络出版总库（CNKI）、中文科技期刊全文数据库（VIP）、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）和万方期刊数据库（WANFANG），收集肿瘤领域经济学研究，并采用QHES量表对其质量进行评价，利用Meta Analyst 3.13和RevMan 5.0软件对评价结果进行统计分析。结果：最终纳入43篇文献研究，自2003年后发表研究数量逐年增加，医院独立完成的研究占90.7%，60.5%的研究采用成本效果分析方法，14篇研究发表的期刊被中国科学引文数据库（chinese science citation database，CSCD）收录。纳入研究总得分为62.51?5.92，方法学质量评分结果为一般。分层分析显示，在发表时间、作者单位性质和期刊来源方面的差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。结论：我国肿瘤药物经济学研究方法学质量整体较低，突出表现在研究分析角度、亚组人群、成本测算方法和资金资助等的报告上，建议未来研究应尽可能遵守QHES量表报告方法学部分。

Abstract: Objective： To assess the quality of economics research of cancer in China by the quality of health economic studies (QHES) checklist. Methods： We have searched China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database，China Science and Tenology Journal Database，China Biomedical Literature Database and China Online Journals and included the related economical studies of cancer. At the same time， the qualities of included studies were assessed by the QHES， the Meta Analyst 3.13 and RevMan 5.0 was used to analysis the related data. Results： 43 studies were identified and analyzed， published papers were increased from 2003. 90.7%studies were performed by doctor in hospital， cost effectiveness analysis were used in 60.5% studies，14 studies were published in chinese science citation database. The total score of included studies was 62.51±5.92，the quality was moderate， the subgroup analysis showed that there were no significant difference in publish time and level of journal and institutions(P＞0.05). Conclusion： The methodological quality of cancer overall is low， especially in the study angle， the subgroup， cost calculation and funding， we recommend that editor could add the QHES checklists to the guide for authors.

刘芳芳,姜红,卓玛拉措,赵丽婷,何耀,张素华,田金徽. 我国肿瘤领域经济学研究方法学质量评价[J]. .