RESUMO
Objective To comprehensively assess the strengths and weaknesses of the 24 antihypertensive drugs procured as Volume-based Procurement(VBP)and innovator drugs by using quantitative evaluation system,and to provide a reference for doctors and patients in medication guidance and pharmaceutical decision-making.Methods The Quantitative Evaluation Criteria in the"Quick Guide to Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions"were refined and optimized.The 24 selected VBP and innovator antihypertensive drugs were quantitatively evaluated according to the optimized quantitative evaluation system with the help of Chinese and English databases such as China Knowledge Network,Wanfang data,Wipunet,Embased,PubMed,and Metstr,as well as guideline search tools such as Meikang MCDEX,Drugwise Data,Up To Date,Medical Pulse and other databases etc.Results Among the 24 antihypertensive drugs,only four innovator drug evaluation scores were higher than those of drugs selected as VBP,namely felodipine tablets,Fosinopril sodium tablets,indapamide extended-release capsules,Irbesartan hydrochlorothiazide tablets.there were five main differences in the evaluation scores,namely economy,consistency evaluation,drug expiry date,global use,and the status of manufacturing enterprises.It was found that 83%of the VBP drugs had higher evaluation scores than those of the innovator drugs.The economic score of the innovator drug was low,and the difference in the scores was between 1-11 points.Conclusion By using the quantitative evaluation system to evaluate the antihypertensive drugs,the advantages and disadvantages of the innovator and VBP antihypertensive drugs can be assessed comprehensively,and the digital characteristics of antihypertensive drugs can be given,and the evaluation score can provide the reference basis for the guidance and decision-making of medication for doctors and patients.
RESUMO
Objective:To test the reliability and validity of a multi-dimensional, quantitative video evaluation system (the Multi-dimensional system) for evaluating hand dysfunction among stroke survivors so as to provide an objective basis for its clinical application.Methods:Sixty stroke survivors with single dysfunctional hand were evaluated using the Multi-dimensional system and also using the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA-UE) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and in terms of their active range of hand motion (AROM-H). The Multi-dimensional system′s internal consistency, composite reliability, split-half reliability, parallel-forms reliability as well as intra- and inter-observer reliability were quantified. Its validity was tested in terms of content validity, structural validity, convergent validity and criterion validity.Results:The system′s Cronbach′s α was determined to be 0.86. Its one-dimension composite reliability was 0.939, its split-half reliability coefficient was 0.88 and its parallel-forms reliability was 0.922. The inter-evaluator reliability was between 0.965 and 0.998 [95%CI= (0.919, 0.999)], and the single evaluator ICC value was 0.973 to 0.998 [95%CI= (0.937, 0.999)]. The validity test produced a content validity index of 1, and the Pearson correlation coefficients between each sub-item and the total score were all greater than 0.60. The KMO value for structural validity was 0.882, and there was a common factor in the component matrix which reflected 60.9% of the information in the original variables. The system′s convergent validity AVE was 0.609 with Pearson correlation coefficients between the multidimensional system and the FMA-UE and ARAT both > 0.70.Conclusion:The multi-dimensional quantitative video evaluation system has good reliability and validity in the evaluation of stroke survivors with hand dysfunction.