Preferred reporting items for comprehensive evaluation of Chinese patent medicine (PRICE-CPM): elaboration and explanation_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Haili ¹ , JIAO Liwen ¹ , LIANG Ning ¹ , CHEN Yaxin ¹ , XU Xiao ¹ , WANG Weili ¹ , SONG Tian ¹ , LI Xiaoling ² , YANG Yijiu ¹ , HU Ziteng ¹ , WANG Jingya ¹ , LI Huizhen ¹ , ZONG Xingyu ¹ , ZHAO Chen ¹ , LV Cheng ¹ , WANG Yanping ¹ ,  SHI Nannan ¹

1. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, P. R. China;
2. Shanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang 712046, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

SHI Nannan, Email: 13811839164@vip.126.com

Keywords：

Chinese patent medicine; Comprehensive evaluation; Reporting checklist; Reporting guideline; Interpretation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202203159

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

The preferred reporting items for comprehensive evaluation of Chinese patent medicine (PRICE-CPM) regulate the specific requirements of forming integrity, clear, and transparent reports from title to conclusion. It contains six domains with twenty-one items and seventy-two sub-items and is important to promote the integrity, scientificity, transparency, and applicability of relevant reports. Additionally, it indicates that comprehensive evaluation results reports of post-marketing Chinese patent medicine should refer to PRICE-CPM. Therefore, this article provides a detailed interpretation of the report list and references for future users.

Citation： ZHANG Haili, JIAO Liwen, LIANG Ning, CHEN Yaxin, XU Xiao, WANG Weili, SONG Tian, LI Xiaoling, YANG Yijiu, HU Ziteng, WANG Jingya, LI Huizhen, ZONG Xingyu, ZHAO Chen, LV Cheng, WANG Yanping, SHI Nannan. Preferred reporting items for comprehensive evaluation of Chinese patent medicine (PRICE-CPM): elaboration and explanation. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2022, 22(7): 756-761. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202203159 Copy

1.	孫鳳. 醫學研究報告規范解讀. 北京: 北京大學醫學出版社, 2015: 2-3.
2.	周慶輝, 李霄茜, 陳蘭玉, 等. 學術研究實施與報告和醫學期刊編輯與發表的推薦規范. 中華肝臟病雜志, 2014, 22(10): 781-791.
3.	姚亮, 陳耀龍, 王琪, 等. 病例報告的報告規范解讀. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2014, 9(3): 216-219.
4.	Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials, 2012, 13: 132.
5.	Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials. A systematic review. Med J Aust, 2006, 185(5): 263-267.
6.	Smith BA, Lee HJ, Lee JH, et al. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the nursing literature: application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Nurs Outlook, 2008, 56(1): 31-37.
7.	嵇承棟, 朱琳懿, 萬悅竹, 等. 國際衛生技術評估機構協作網衛生技術評估報告清單解讀. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016, 16(3): 369-372.
8.	李晶, 胡晶, 商洪才. 臨床研究文獻質量評價工具介紹及其應用. 新鄉醫學院學報, 2010, 27(4): 410-412.
9.	Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/.
10.	Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2): e1000217.
11.	Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 2015, 350: g7647.
12.	AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care, 2003, 12(1): 18-23.
13.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
14.	李兵, 韓飛, 王忠, 等. 多組學網絡背景下方劑臨床價值的考量. 中國中藥雜志, 2017, 42(5): 848-851.
15.	張莉, 張俊華, 鄭文科, 等. 上市后中成藥個性識別方法的探索. 全國中醫藥博士生學術交流會暨第四屆全國中醫藥博士生優秀論文頒獎會議論文集, 2013: 1316-1320.
16.	張雪, 張學敏. 從長春長生疫苗事件看提高藥品質量安全的重要性. 健康必讀, 2018, (33): 295.
17.	張海力, 焦麗雯, 梁寧, 等. 基于綜合評價方法的多維度多準則優勢中成藥綜合評價指標體系構建研究. 中國中醫基礎醫學雜志, 2021, 27(3): 403-406.
18.	中國藥學會. 中國藥物經濟學評價指南2020. Available at: https://www.cpa.org.cn/index.php?do=info&cid=75553.
19.	Jolicoeur LM, Jones-Grizzle AJ, Boyer JG. Guidelines for performing a pharmacoeconomic analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm, 1992, 49(7): 1741-1747.
20.	高志峰, 林蘭. 藥品檢驗中標準的有效性研究. 中國新藥雜志, 2017, 26(3): 261-264.
21.	陳耀龍, 王健健, 詹思延, 等. 如何應對指南制訂中的利益沖突. 協和醫學雜志, 2019, 10(6): 685-691.
22.	Lo B, Field MJ, Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, eds. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2009.
23.	Iannone P, Montano N, Minardi M, et al. Wrong guidelines: why and how often they occur. Evid Based Med, 2017, 22(1): 1-3.

1. 孫鳳. 醫學研究報告規范解讀. 北京: 北京大學醫學出版社, 2015: 2-3.
2. 周慶輝, 李霄茜, 陳蘭玉, 等. 學術研究實施與報告和醫學期刊編輯與發表的推薦規范. 中華肝臟病雜志, 2014, 22(10): 781-791.
3. 姚亮, 陳耀龍, 王琪, 等. 病例報告的報告規范解讀. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2014, 9(3): 216-219.
4. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials, 2012, 13: 132.
5. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials. A systematic review. Med J Aust, 2006, 185(5): 263-267.
6. Smith BA, Lee HJ, Lee JH, et al. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the nursing literature: application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Nurs Outlook, 2008, 56(1): 31-37.
7. 嵇承棟, 朱琳懿, 萬悅竹, 等. 國際衛生技術評估機構協作網衛生技術評估報告清單解讀. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016, 16(3): 369-372.
8. 李晶, 胡晶, 商洪才. 臨床研究文獻質量評價工具介紹及其應用. 新鄉醫學院學報, 2010, 27(4): 410-412.
9. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/.
10. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2): e1000217.
11. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 2015, 350: g7647.
12. AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care, 2003, 12(1): 18-23.
13. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
14. 李兵, 韓飛, 王忠, 等. 多組學網絡背景下方劑臨床價值的考量. 中國中藥雜志, 2017, 42(5): 848-851.
15. 張莉, 張俊華, 鄭文科, 等. 上市后中成藥個性識別方法的探索. 全國中醫藥博士生學術交流會暨第四屆全國中醫藥博士生優秀論文頒獎會議論文集, 2013: 1316-1320.
16. 張雪, 張學敏. 從長春長生疫苗事件看提高藥品質量安全的重要性. 健康必讀, 2018, (33): 295.
17. 張海力, 焦麗雯, 梁寧, 等. 基于綜合評價方法的多維度多準則優勢中成藥綜合評價指標體系構建研究. 中國中醫基礎醫學雜志, 2021, 27(3): 403-406.
18. 中國藥學會. 中國藥物經濟學評價指南2020. Available at: https://www.cpa.org.cn/index.php?do=info&cid=75553.
19. Jolicoeur LM, Jones-Grizzle AJ, Boyer JG. Guidelines for performing a pharmacoeconomic analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm, 1992, 49(7): 1741-1747.
20. 高志峰, 林蘭. 藥品檢驗中標準的有效性研究. 中國新藥雜志, 2017, 26(3): 261-264.
21. 陳耀龍, 王健健, 詹思延, 等. 如何應對指南制訂中的利益沖突. 協和醫學雜志, 2019, 10(6): 685-691.
22. Lo B, Field MJ, Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, eds. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2009.
23. Iannone P, Montano N, Minardi M, et al. Wrong guidelines: why and how often they occur. Evid Based Med, 2017, 22(1): 1-3.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Preferred reporting items for comprehensive evaluation of Chinese patent medicine (PRICE-CPM): elaboration and explanation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content