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.	孙凤. 医学研究报告规范解读. 北京: 北京大学医学出版社, 2015: 2-3.
2.	周庆辉, 李霄茜, 陈兰玉, 等. 学术研究实施与报告和医学期刊编辑与发表的推荐规范. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2014, 22(10): 781-791.
3.	姚亮, 陈耀龙, 王琪, 等. 病例报告的报告规范解读. 中国循证儿科杂志, 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.	嵇承栋, 朱琳懿, 万悦竹, 等. 国际卫生技术评估机构协作网卫生技术评估报告清单解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(3): 369-372.
8.	李晶, 胡晶, 商洪才. 临床研究文献质量评价工具介绍及其应用. 新乡医学院学报, 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, 韩飞, 王忠, 等. 多组学网络背景下方剂临床价值的考量. 中国中药杂志, 2017, 42(5): 848-851.
15.	张莉, 张俊华, 郑文科, 等. 上市后中成药个性识别方法的探索. 全国中医药博士生学术交流会暨第四届全国中医药博士生优秀论文颁奖会议论文集, 2013: 1316-1320.
16.	张雪, 张学敏. 从长春长生疫苗事件看提高药品质量安全的重要性. 健康必读, 2018, (33): 295.
17.	张海力, 焦丽雯, 梁宁, 等. 基于综合评价方法的多维度多准则优势中成药综合评价指标体系构建研究. 中国中医基础医学杂志, 2021, 27(3): 403-406.
18.	中国药学会. 中国药物经济学评价指南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, 林兰. 药品检验中标准的有效性研究. 中国新药杂志, 2017, 26(3): 261-264.
21.	陈耀龙, 王健健, 詹思延, 等. 如何应对指南制订中的利益冲突. 协和医学杂志, 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. 孙凤. 医学研究报告规范解读. 北京: 北京大学医学出版社, 2015: 2-3.
2. 周庆辉, 李霄茜, 陈兰玉, 等. 学术研究实施与报告和医学期刊编辑与发表的推荐规范. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2014, 22(10): 781-791.
3. 姚亮, 陈耀龙, 王琪, 等. 病例报告的报告规范解读. 中国循证儿科杂志, 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. 嵇承栋, 朱琳懿, 万悦竹, 等. 国际卫生技术评估机构协作网卫生技术评估报告清单解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(3): 369-372.
8. 李晶, 胡晶, 商洪才. 临床研究文献质量评价工具介绍及其应用. 新乡医学院学报, 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, 韩飞, 王忠, 等. 多组学网络背景下方剂临床价值的考量. 中国中药杂志, 2017, 42(5): 848-851.
15. 张莉, 张俊华, 郑文科, 等. 上市后中成药个性识别方法的探索. 全国中医药博士生学术交流会暨第四届全国中医药博士生优秀论文颁奖会议论文集, 2013: 1316-1320.
16. 张雪, 张学敏. 从长春长生疫苗事件看提高药品质量安全的重要性. 健康必读, 2018, (33): 295.
17. 张海力, 焦丽雯, 梁宁, 等. 基于综合评价方法的多维度多准则优势中成药综合评价指标体系构建研究. 中国中医基础医学杂志, 2021, 27(3): 403-406.
18. 中国药学会. 中国药物经济学评价指南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, 林兰. 药品检验中标准的有效性研究. 中国新药杂志, 2017, 26(3): 261-264.
21. 陈耀龙, 王健健, 詹思延, 等. 如何应对指南制订中的利益冲突. 协和医学杂志, 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