XING Xin 1,2,3,4 , KONG Weize 1,2,3 , ZHANG Guohua 4 , GUO Liping 1,2,3 , WEI Zhipeng 1,2,3 , LIU Yijun 5 , CHEN Yaolong 1,2,3,6,7 , YANG Kehu 1,2,3,6,7
  • 1. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 2. Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 3. WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 4. First school of clinical medicine, Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 5. Department of integrated Chinese and Western medicine, Wuwei People's Hospital, Wuwei 733000, P. R. China;
  • 6. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 7. Gansu Provincial Center for Medical Guideline Industry Technology, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
CHEN Yaolong, Email: chevidence@lzu.edu.cn; YANG Kehu, Email: yangkh-ebm@lzu.edu.cn
Chinese clinical practice guidelines; Expert consensus; Health economics; Current status survey; Evidence-based medicine
10.7507/1672-2531.202407155
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To systematically investigate the current status of reporting health economics evidence in clinical practice guidelines and expert consensuses published in China from 2021 to 2023, providing references for the formulation and revision of guidelines and consensuses in our country. Methods Computer searches were conducted in the CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, China Academic Journals Full-text Database, PubMed, and Web of Science to collect clinical practice guidelines and expert consensuses published in China from 2021 to 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information on the inclusion of economic evidence in guidelines and consensuses, and then used quantitative analysis methods for description. Results A total of 4 236 relevant articles were included, of which 1 066 (25.17%) reported health economics evidence; 120 (11.26%) reported health economics evidence in the formation of recommendation opinions; 109 (10.23%) reported health economics evidence in the grading of evidence quality; 832 (78.05%) reported health economics evidence in the interpretation and explanation of recommendation opinions. Conclusion The reporting rate of health economics evidence in clinical practice guidelines and expert consensuses published in China is not high; the reporting rate of health economics evidence in consensuses is lower than that in guidelines. It is recommended that during the formulation process of guidelines and consensuses, the application of health economics evidence should be further strengthened in aspects such as the formation of recommendation opinions, the grading of evidence quality, and the interpretation and explanation of recommendation opinions, in order to improve the scientific, rigorous, and applicability of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensuses, and to play the role of guidelines and consensuses in optimizing the allocation of health resources, improving clinical diagnosis and treatment effects, and enhancing the quality of medical care.

Copyright © the editorial department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved