药物经济学系统评价的再评价  

The overview of pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews

作　　者：米雪 李佳莲[1,2,3] 陈敏[1,2,3] 曾力楠[1,2,3] 黄宗瑶[1,2,3,5] 宋好鑫 张伶俐 MI Rue;LI Jialian;CHEN Min;ZENG Linan;HUANG Zongyao;SONG Haoxin;ZHANG Lingli(Department of Pharmacy,West China Second University Hospital,Sichuan University,Chengdu,610041,P.R.China;Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center,West China Second University Hospital,Sichuan University,Chengdu,610041,P.R.China;Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University),Ministry of Education,Chengdu, 610041,P.R.China;West China School of Medicine,Sichuan University,Chengdu,610041,P.R.China;West China School of Pharmacy,Sichuan University,Chengdu,610041,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]四川大学华西第二医院药学部,成都610041 [2]四川大学华西第二医院循证药学中心,成都610041 [3]出生缺陷与相关妇儿疾病教育部重点实验室,成都610041 [4]四川大学华西临床医学院,成都610041 [5]四川大学华西药学院,成都610041

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2019年第2期212-217,共6页Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

基　　金：国家卫生健康委员会项目(编号:2018-QT-002-药政(2017)3号)

摘　　要：目的对药物经济学研究的系统评价(pharm-SR)进行再评价。方法计算机检索PubMed、EMbase(Ovid)、The Cochrane Library、NHS EED(Ovid)、CENTRAL、Health Technology Assessment(HTA)Database、CNKI、WangFang Data、VIP和CBM数据库,搜集所有pharm-SR,检索时限均为建库至2018年5月6日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献和提取数据后,对发表期刊类型及影响因子、疾病类型、方法学质量评价结果等进行数据统计和频数分析,采用改良后的AMSTAR量表对pharm-SR的方法学质量进行评分。结果最终纳入143篇pharm-SR。自2000年以来pharm-SR发表数量在逐渐增加。其中,英国发文量较多(39.8%);pharm-SR主要发表在Health Technology Assessment和Pharmacoeconomics上;纳入文献中,以肿瘤相关的pharm-SR发表的文献数量最多(20.9%);每篇发表文献平均检索7.42±4.00个数据库,除检索常用数据库MEDLINE、EMbase和TheCochrane Library外,专业数据库主要为NHS EED和HTAD;对药物经济学研究的质量评价工具以BMJchecklist(20.15%)和the Drummond checklist(19.40%)为主。改良后的AMSTAR量表评价结果显示,pharm-SR的得分范围为2～10分,平均分为6.89±2.28分,条目的平均符合率为67.34%,总体方法学质量中等。结论 pharm-SR发表数量和期刊在逐年递增,且研究方法逐渐趋于统一和集中,但研究质量仍有待进一步的提高和完善。Objectives To survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase(Ovid), NHS EED(Ovid), CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment(HTA) Database, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from inception to May 2018 to collect systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Data statistics and frequency analysis were then conducted on the basic characteristics of included literatures, which involves the publication journal type and influencing factors(IF), disease type, quality assessment tool, etc. The amended AMSTAR scale was used to assess the methodological quality of pharm-SR. Results One hundred and forty-three systematic reviews were included in the overview. The UK had a large number of publications(39.8%), which were mostly published in the Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics. Among the included literatures, most were evaluated tumor related pharmacoeconomics systematic reviews(20.8%). They searched on average 7.42±4.00 databases. The British Medical Journal checklist(20.15%) and the Drummond checklist(19.40) were the main tools for quality evaluation. The methodological qualities of these studies were not high. Conclusions The evidence shows that the number of systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic is increasing and research methodology is gradually unifying. However, the quality is still required to be further improved.

关 键 词：药物经济学 系统评价 系统评价再评价 

分 类 号：R956[医药卫生—药学]