Quality Evaluation Of Literature On Economic Evaluation Of Hypertension Prevention And Control In China

ObjectiveUsing the CHEERS list from Economic Evaluations of Health to give a quality assessment of those published documents on prevention and control of high blood pressure among Chinese 1980-2015,offering a gist about how to enhance the literature quality of economic evaluation.MethodsThis research is based on data sources such as ChinaInfo,Chinese biological and medical literature database,Chinese journal Full-text Database,Economic evaluation data from British Health Service,Pubmed,Proquest,Web of Science,Embase,Scopus,searching economic evaluation literature published from January 1980 to December 2015 on prevention and control of high blood pressure among Chinese.Extracting and comparing the year of publication,the journal title,the number of authors,the institutes authors work,the first author and his/her institute,the corresponding authors and their institutes,the measures to intervene,drug category of all included literature,my thesis employs CHEERS list of health economic evaluation report to give a quality assessment of included literature.Statistical analysis method:Excel data management,SPSS20.0 software for statistical analysis of data.Results1,The feature description of literatureThe result of literature searching:there are in total 1467 articles related to prevention and control of high blood pressure from 1980-2015,1319 in Chinese,148 in English.295 articles(291 in Chinese,4 in English)are finally included in this research,all of which were published from 2000 to 2015 and the amount of articles has been increasing,the maximum number of literature happened in 2012,2014 next to it,the minimum is in 2000.According to whether the journals are classified as core journals,the median score of the core journals is 13,and the median score of the non-core periodicals is 13 points,which is not statistically different.The result of published journals:291 literature show up on 124 journals,the first twenty of which published 136 literature,taking up 46.75%.18 out of these first twenty journals are medical ones.The result of author searching:Among 291 authors who published articles,there are 282 who published only one literature,7 publishing 2,2 publishing 3.only 20 out of 291 documents involve in corresponding authors,making up 6.87%,while corresponding writers involve in all 4 English literature.The distribution of author's institute:The first author of 291 literature mainly come from medical institutes,universities,accounting for 97.94%,Most of whom are from medical institutes,occupying 94.50%,writers from universities make up 3.44%,less public health agencies,and one from the Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd.The first author of the four English literatures is mainly from medical institutions and public health institutions.2.Literature quality evaluationScores:the highest score among 295 documents is 25,the lowest is 7,the intermediate is 13,and the quarterback space is 2.Around 233(80.86%)Chinese documents only score 11 to 14,only twelve of which scores higher than 14,taking up 4.12%.As to 4 English literature,the highest score is 46,lowest is 25,32 is in the middle.Quarterback spacing is 18.25.English literate grades apparently are higher then Chinese.Model research is obviously superior to single research.The last low-ranking items mainly include item 6(study perspective),17(analytic methods),20(characterizing uncertainty),21(characterizing heterogeneity),23(source of funding),24(conflicts of interest),9(discount rate),5(setting and location),7(comparators),19(incremental costs and outcomes).The much bigger discrepancy of Chinese literature and English literature is in item 21(characterizing heterogeneity),6(study perspective),23(source of funding),24(conflicts of interest),5(setting and location),7(comparators),4(target population and subgroups),11(measurement of effectiveness),12(measurement and valuation of preference-based outcomes),16(assumptions),8(time horizon),10(choice of health outcomes)and 2(abstract).ConclusionOur economic evaluation of prevention and control of high blood pressure is still at the initial stage,the scores of literature quality are not ideal,model study is doing better than single one,the quality of all reports still have room for improvement.