Objective To investigate the health technology assessment reports, analyze publication characteristics and report quality, and explore hot topics in health technology assessment. Methods Web of Science and CNKI databases were searched to collect complete health technology assessment reports from inception to January 2023. SPSS 26.0 software was used to analyze the publication journals, countries, number of authors, assessment types and assessment contents of the assessment reports. The report quality was assessed based on International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) report criteria (2007 edition). VOSviewer 1.6.11 was used to analyze keywords clustering. Results A total of 216 papers were included, with 158 published by Chinese authors, and a rapid growth trend in the number of reports over past four years. The rate of reports on health technology social adaptability assessment was only 17.13%. Among the Chinese reports, 25 were general health technology assessments, 35 were rapid assessments, and 3 were mini assessments. Among the English reports, 4 were rapid assessments, and 54 were regular healthcare technology assessments. For the 14 items in the INAHTA reporting criteria, the reporting rates were high for the brief summary (98.61%), problem description (94.91%), and results discussion entries (97.69%). However, the reporting rates were low for criteria such as personnel responsibilities, conflict of interest statements, and peer review statements, at 31.94%, 19.44%, and 3.24% respectively. English literature generally exhibited higher report quality. Conclusion In recent years, the volume of health technology assessment reports in China has been increasing, with developments in assessment types and application fields. However, there are also problems with standardization of reporting.
ObjectiveTo select the key questions of the reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis. MethodsA question pool about reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis was conducted by preliminary literature research and qualitative systematic review. A correspondence questionnaire was designed and the selection of key questions was carried out through two rounds of expert consultation using the Delphi method. ResultsA total of 21 key questions were selected for the network meta-analysis report standard of acupuncture, including whether to report details of acupuncture interventions (e.g., needle type, acupoints used, number of needles inserted, depth of needle insertion, retention time, needling techniques, and treatment duration), diagnostic criteria for diseases or traditional Chinese medicine syndromes, and qualifications of acupuncture practitioners. Of these, the only three key questions answered by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were summary, protocol and registration, and source of funding, while the remaining 19 were specific to acupuncture-related report standards. ConclusionThe conducted key question on reporting guideline of acupuncture network meta-analysis can improve the standardization and rigor of relevant research and better utilize its academic and clinical value.
Objective To summarize and analyze the working experience of hospital performance evaluation and reporting system in America, so as to provide decision support to China on such work as establishing objective, scientific and effective hospital performance evaluation system, strengthening government’s supervision to health service, and promoting hospitals’ sound development.Methods American official websites and databases were searched to include relative policies, reports and documents on hospitals’ performance evaluation. Results Typical hospital performance evaluation and reporting system in America included National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR), Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CAHPS), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), Leapfrog Group Evaluation System and Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals. Conclusion The enlightenments of American performance performance evaluation systems to China include: a) more attention should be paid to performance evaluation; b) combined evaluation models and results application methods should be considered; c) comparatively scientific evaluation methods and comprehensive evaluation contents should be established.
ObjectiveTo analyze the reporting and methodological quality of tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched for meta-analyses of tranexamic acid from inception to August 12th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and used AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2009 to assess the methodological and reporting quality of publications. ResultsA total of 68 meta-analyses were included. The identified meta-analyses required improvement for items 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16 in the AMSTAR 2, and items 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 27 in the PRISMA 2009 assessments, respectively. The methodological and reporting quality scores were positively correlated (rs=0.36, P=0.002). Linear regression analysis identified the mentioning of PRISMA and funding support as the independent factors potentially affecting the reporting quality score (P<0.05). ConclusionsBoth the methodological and reporting quality of the tranexamic acid meta-analyses published in Chinese journals require improvement.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses on acupuncture focusing on literature screening results and explore the influencing factors of the complete reporting.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were searched to collect SRs/meta-analyses on acupuncture from inception to December 31st, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the reporting quality of literature screening results of SRs/meta-analyses on acupuncture based on PRISMA statement. Logistic regression model analysis was applied to explore the influencing factors of the complete reporting rate of literature screening results. Statistical analysis was performed by using Excel 2016 and SPSS 16.0 software.ResultsA total of 1 227 SRs/meta-analyses were included. Only 62.3% SRs fully reported the four parts of literature screening results. The parts with a low reporting rate included the number of studies assessed for eligibility (73.2%) and the reasons for exclusions at each stage (67.0%). And the reporting rate of the literature screening flowchart was also low (63.6%). The reporting rate of literature screening results in Chinese SRs was lower than that in English SRs, and there was significantly statistical difference (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the type of published journal, publication year, pages of article and the number of searched databases were correlated with the complete reporting rate of literature screening results (P<0.001).ConclusionsThe complete reporting rate of the literature screening results of SRs on acupuncture is low, especially in Chinese SRs. The complete reporting rate of literature screening results is significantly higher for SRs published after PRISMA statement, in SCI journals, with longer length and more searched databases.
ObjectivesTo analyze the current methodological and reporting quality of both domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture, and to provide reference for the development of high quality acupuncture clinical practice guidelines.MethodsGIN, NICE, AHRQ, PubMed, EMbase, AMED, CINAHL, WanFang Data, CNKI, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect domestic and overseas clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture from inception to September, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the methodological and reporting quality by using AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT tools.ResultsA total of 23 acupuncture clinical practice guidelines were included, in which three were developed by foreign institutions, and the remaining 20 guidelines were jointly developed by WHO Western Pacific Region and China Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Three foreign and two domestic guidelines were selected for evaluation. The AGREE Ⅱ evaluation showed that the domestic guidelines have higher scores in terms of " scope and purpose”, " stakeholder involvement”, " rigor of development”, " applicability” and " clarity of presentation”, while only " editorial independence” is lower. The overall recommendation is stronger than the foreign guidelines. The RIGHT evaluation showed that for three foreign guidelines, the " reported” items accounted for 52.38%, " unreported” items accounted for 38.09%, " partly reported” items accounted for 6.66%%; however, for domestic guidelines, the " reported” accounted for 45.71%, " unreported” items accounted for 40%, and " partly reported” items accounted for 14.28% respectively. Overall, the difference is not significant (SD<10%). Due to the specificity of acupuncture interventions, the use of AGREEⅡ and RIGHT to evaluate acupuncture clinical practice guidelines still had barriers to some extend on its applicability.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are relatively low. It is urgent to further improve the methodological level and reporting standards of the guidelines, and to develop evaluation tools for the acupuncture field guidelines.
Surrogate endpoints, defined as biomarkers or intermediate outcomes utilized in clinical trials to replace the ultimate targeted outcomes, have witnessed a growing prevalence in both clinical trials and drug-device approvals in recent years. To standardize the application and reporting of surrogate endpoints in clinical trial protocols and associated studies, relevant scholars published the SPIRIT-Surrogate and CONSORT-Surrogate reporting guidelines in the BMJ in July 2024. This article provides an interpretation of these guidelines in conjunction with published case studies, with the aim of offering references for domestic researchers, elevating the overall quality of related clinical trials, and eventually facilitating the enhancement of domestic healthcare level.
To standardize and improve the reporting quality of digital health implementation research, the Geneva Digital Health Hub has developed the guidelines and checklist for reporting digital health implementations (iCHECK-DH). This paper introduces the background of iCHECK-DH and based on practical application experiences, emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. It focuses on economic cost-effectiveness and local policy guidance in the clinical implementation of digital health technologies. This will provide valuable insights for Chinese scholars when writing implementation reports on digital health technologies.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 and to compare the reporting quality with that from 2004 to 2008. MethodsRCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals were collected through a computerized search of the CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases and manual searches of paper journals, all with a search timeframe from 2016 to 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement and two extensions (CONSORT extension for abstracts and CONSORT harms extension) were used to evaluate the RCTs. The criteria for reporting quality were the evaluation score, reporting proportion, and compliance proportion. The reporting quality of RCTs in the past 5 years was compared by year group. In addition, the RCT reporting quality from 2004 to 2008 was compared with that from 2016 to 2020. ResultsIn total, 226 RCTs were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the total evaluation score or abstract score from 2016 to 2020 (F=0.54, P=0.71; H=1.49, P=0.83). However, there were statistically significant differences in the harm scores from 2016 to 2020 (H=10.78, P=0.03). Further analysis of the items revealed statistically significant differences in the reporting proportion of items 16 and 19 (Fisher’s=8.61, P=0.04; χ2=11.63, P=0.02) and no significant differences in the other items (P>0.05). The reporting proportion of defined primary and secondary outcome indicators, allocation concealment, randomization implementation, outcomes and estimation, generalization, trial registration, and flow chart was <10% in each year. There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance proportion of RCT reporting quality from 2016 to 2020 versus 2004 to 2008 (39.54%±8.92% vs. 34.76%±9.16%, t=6.60, P<0.001). ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 is better than that from 2004 to 2008. However, the reporting quality of RCTs within the latter 5 years still have reporting deficiencies in important items, and many aspects still are needed to be improved and enhanced.