Study of the evaluation methods for evidence and recommendation in Chinese expert consensus on off-label use of drugs
- VernacularTitle:药品说明书外用法中国专家共识中的证据和推荐意见评价方法研究
- Author:
Mingyue ZHANG
1
;
Nan CHEN
2
;
Ling XU
2
;
Zhenggang BAI
3
;
Likai LIN
4
Author Information
1. School of Pharmacy，Henan University of Chinese Medicine，Zhengzhou 450046，China
2. Dept. of Pharmacy，People’s Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine/People’s Hospital of Zhengzhou，Zhengzhou 450003，China
3. Evidence-based Research Center of Social Science & Health，Nanjing University of Science and Technology，Nanjing 210094，China
4. Hospital Management Institute，Wuhan University，Wuhan 430071，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
off-label use of drugs;
evidence;
recommen-
- From:
China Pharmacy
2025;36(6):641-647
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To provide reference for optimizing or formulating unified evaluation methods for evidence and recommendation in expert consensus on off-label use of drugs. METHODS Retrieved from CNKI， Wanfang data， VIP， CBM， PubMed and Web of Science， Chinese expert consensuses on off-label use of drugs involving evaluation methods for evidence and recommendations were collected from the inception to August 1， 2024. After screening the literature and extracting relevant data， descriptive statistical analysis was conducted. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS Among the 32 articles included， 14 articles （43.8%） used Micromedex’s Thomson grading system， only 7 articles （21.9%） considered economic factors when forming recommendations， 10 articles （31.3%） reported the conflicts of interest； only 2 articles （6.3%） involved experts in the field of evidence-based medicine methodology. There were differences in the sources of evidence， factors considered in forming recommendations， and the grading standards for evidence and recommendations among different expert consensus evidence evaluation methods. There were also differences in evidence levels and recommendation strength of the same drug off-label use in different expert consensus. It is recommended that in future consensus-building processes， greater attention should be paid to potential conflicts of interest among participants， collaboration with methodological experts should be enhanced， and efforts should be expedited to establish unified standards for evaluating evidence and recommendation methodologies.
