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.