文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：中国临床实践指南和专家共识卫生经济学报告现状分析

英文题名：Current status of health economics reports on clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus in China from 2021 to 2023

作者：邢新[1,2,3,4];孔维泽[1,2,3];张国华[4];郭丽萍[1,2,3];魏志鹏[1,2,3];刘一君[5];陈耀龙[1,2,3,6,7];杨克虎[1,2,3,6,7]

第一作者：邢新

机构：[1]兰州大学基础医学院循证医学中心,兰州730000;[2]兰州大学循证社会科学研究中心,兰州730000;[3]世界卫生组织指南实施与知识转化合作中心,兰州730000;[4]甘肃中医药大学第一临床医学院,兰州730000;[5]武威市人民医院中西医结合科,甘肃武威733000;[6]甘肃省循证医学重点实验室,兰州730000;[7]甘肃省医学指南行业技术中心,兰州730000

第一机构：兰州大学基础医学院循证医学中心,兰州730000

年份：2025

卷号：25

期号：2

起止页码：195

中文期刊名：中国循证医学杂志

外文期刊名：Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

收录：;北大核心:【北大核心2023】；

基金：国家社科基金重大项目(编号:19ZDA142);甘肃省委组织部重点人才项目(编号:甘组通字〔2023〕20号)。

语种：中文

中文关键词：中国临床实践指南;专家共识;卫生经济学;现状调查;循证医学

外文关键词：Chinese clinical practice guidelines;Expert consensus;Health economics;Current status survey;Evidence-based medicine

摘要：目的系统调查2021―2023年中国发布的临床实践指南和专家共识中有关卫生经济学证据的报告现状,为我国指南和共识的制订/修订提供参考。方法计算机检索CNKI、CBM、WanFang Data、中华医学期刊全文数据库、PubMed、Web of Science,搜集2021―2023年我国发布的临床实践指南和专家共识。由2名研究者独立筛选文献,提取纳入指南和共识的卫生经济学证据等信息后,采用定量分析方法进行描述。结果共纳入4236部指南或共识,其中1066(25.17%)部报告了卫生经济学证据;120(11.26%)部在推荐意见的形成中报告了卫生经济学证据;109(10.23%)部在证据质量的分级中报告了卫生经济学证据;832(78.05%)部在推荐意见的解释说明中报告了卫生经济学证据。结论2021—2023年中国发布的临床实践指南和专家共识中对卫生经济学证据的报告率不高;专家共识的卫生经济学证据报告率相比指南更低。建议指南和共识制订过程中,在推荐意见的形成、证据质量的分级和推荐意见的解释说明等方面进一步加强卫生经济学证据的应用,以提高临床实践指南和专家共识的科学性、严谨性和适用性,发挥指南和共识在优化卫生资源配置、提高临床诊疗效果,提升医疗质量等方面的作用。
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 inthe CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, China Academic Journals Full-text Database, PubMed, and Web of Science to collectclinical practice guidelines and expert consensuses published in China from 2021 to 2023. Two researchers independentlyscreened the literature, extracted information on the inclusion of economic evidence in guidelines and consensuses, andthen used quantitative analysis methods for description. Results A total of 4 236 relevant articles were included, of which1 066 (25.17%) reported health economics evidence;120 (11.26%) reported health economics evidence in the formation ofrecommendation 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 consensusespublished in China is not high. The reporting rate of health economics evidence in consensuses is lower than that inguidelines. It is recommended that during the formulation process of guidelines and consensuses, the application of healtheconomics evidence should be further strengthened in aspects such as the formation of recommendation opinions, thegrading of evidence quality, and the interpretation and explanation of recommendation opinions, in order to improve thescientific, rigorous, and applicability of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensuses, and to play the role ofguidelines and consensuses in optimizing the allocation of health resources, improving clinical diagnosis and treatmenteffects, and enhancing the quality of medical care.