Objectives The pharmacoeconomic studies of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are still in its infancy. Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM to improve the efficiency of health resource allocation and guide the rational use of medicine. Methods Four databases were searched from inception to January 2018. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) were used to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality. STATA 12.0 and Meta analyst 3.13 were used to analyze the related data. Results A total of 178 studies were included. The methodological evaluation of the study found that the total score of QHES was 47.85 +/- 8.09. The report quality evaluation results found that many studies did not report comprehensive information, such as lack of detailed reports on abstracts, study perspectives, time frames, discount rates, model selection, but the titles, study background and location, and health results, resource and cost estimates, analysis methods, and heterogeneity analysis are reported in more detail. Six of the ten stratification factors have statistically significant differences. Conclusion The overall quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM is low, and further standardization and improvement are needed to obtain reliable study results.

Background: To analyze the collaboration and reporting quality of the systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. Methods: The Campbell collaboration online library was searched for systematic reviews of social welfare and the basic information extracted in order to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews using a MOOSE checklist. BICOMS-2 and UCINET software were used to produce the social network, and Comprehensive Meta Analysis (Version 2) and STATA 13.0 were used to analyze the related data. Results: Fifty-seven systematic reviews of social welfare were included. Twenty-eight items of the included social welfare systematic reviews were rated as complete (≥70%). There were significant differences between ≤2013 and ≥ 2014 in five items. These differences were as follows: research published by one organization or more than one organization in one item, more than three authors or less than four authors in two items, and one country or more than one country in six items. It's completed about researches with more than one organization, three authors or more than one country. Some items were found to have a low reporting rate of studies published before 2014, by one organization, with less than four authors or one country, respectively. The social network of authors and organizations showed good collaboration. Conclusions: Some items could be further improved with regard to the rate of reporting systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. This could improve the overall quality of social welfare systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: With rapidly expanding infrastructure in China, mobile technology has been deemed to have the potential to revolutionize health care delivery. There is particular promise for mobile health (mHealth) to positively influence health system reform and confront the new challenges of chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review existing mHealth initiatives in China, characterize them, and examine the extent to which mHealth contributes toward the health system strengthening in China. Furthermore, we also aimed to identify gaps in mHealth development and evaluation. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature from English and Chinese electronic database and trial registries, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, China National Knowledge of Infrastructure (CNKI), and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We used the English keywords of mHealth, eHealth, telemedicine, telehealth, mobile phone, cell phone, text messaging, and China, as well as their corresponding Chinese keywords. All articles using mobile technology for health care management were included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 1704 articles were found using the search terms, and eventually 72 were included. Overall, few high quality interventions were identified. Most interventions were found to be insufficient in scope, and their evaluation was of inadequate rigor to generate scalable solutions and provide reliable evidence of effectiveness. Most interventions focused on text messaging for consumer education and behavior change. There were a limited number of interventions that addressed health information management, health workforce issues, use of medicines and technologies, or leadership and governance from a health system perspective. CONCLUSIONS: We provide four recommendations for future mHealth interventions in China that include the need for the development, evaluation and trials examining integrated mHealth interventions to guide the development of future mHealth interventions, target disadvantaged populations with mHealth interventions, and generate appropriate evidence for scalable and sustainable models of care.