RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE To review economic studies of diabetes drugs in Chinese population systematically ，and to provide reference for promoting the development of pharmacoeconomics research in the field of diabetes and improving the research quality. METHODS Retrieving from PubMed ，Embase，SinoMed，CNKI，Wanfang data ，VIP and other databases ，the literatures on economic evaluation of diabetes drugs in Chinese population were collected ；analysis was carried out on the publication ，research content，study design of the literatures. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013（CHEERS 2013） checklist was used for quality evaluation. RESULTS A total of 380 literatures were included ，involving 348 Chinese literatures and 32 English literatures. The first paper of diabetes drugs in Chinese population was published in 2001. The most evaluated drug was metformin. Most of the studies （79.2％）were conducted by medical institutions ，73.9％ of the studies were short-term economic evaluation，and the methods were mainly cost-effectiveness analysis （61.8％），and most of the studies did not reported clear research perspectives （82.6％）. Evaluated by CHEERS 2013，the average score of included literatures was only 10.57，and 85.8％ of the literatures was of unqualified quality. The average score of Chinese literatures was 10.05，that of English literatures was 16.23，and the reporting quality of English literatures was significantly better than that of Chinese literature s（P＜0.001）. CONCLUSIONS The existing literatures on the economic evaluation of diabetes drugs in Chinese population is of low quality. There are problems such as lack of research perspectives ，single research institution/method ，and non-standard reporting. It is recommended that medical institutions ，universities/research institutions ，enterprises，government and other institutions should strengthen cooperation ，improve their research level ，pay attention to more and newer clinically effective treatment regimens ，and promote the transformation of research results into decision-making evidence.