ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: - Little is known regarding the reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology. OBJECTIVE: - To compare reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology and medicine and to examine factors associated with reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses. DESIGN: - Meta-analyses were identified in 12 major diagnostic pathology journals without specifying years and 4 major medicine journals in 2006 and 2011 using PubMed. Reporting quality of meta-analyses was evaluated using the 27-item checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009. A higher PRISMA score indicates higher reporting quality. RESULTS: - Forty-one diagnostic pathology meta-analyses and 118 medicine meta-analyses were included. Overall, reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology was lower than that in medicine (median [interquartile range] = 22 [15, 25] versus 27 [23, 28], P < .001). Compared with medicine meta-analyses, diagnostic pathology meta-analyses less likely reported 23 of the 27 items (85.2%) on the PRISMA checklist, but more likely reported the data items. Higher reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses was associated with recent publication years (later than 2009 versus 2009 or earlier, P = .002) and non-North American first authors (versus North American, P = .001), but not journal publisher's location (P = .11). Interestingly, reporting quality was not associated with adjusted citation ratio for meta-analyses in either diagnostic pathology or medicine (P = .40 and P = .09, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: - Meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology had lower reporting quality than those in medicine. Reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses is linked to publication year and first author's location, but not to journal publisher's location or article's adjusted citation ratios. More research and education on meta-analysis methodology may improve the reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses.
Subject(s)
Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pathology , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Universal Zero-Markup Drug Policy (UZMDP) mandates no price mark-ups on any drug dispensed by a healthcare institution, and covers the medicines not included in the China's National Essential Medicine System. Five tertiary hospitals in Beijing, China implemented UZMDP in 2012. Its impacts on these hospitals are unknown. We described the effects of UZMDP on a participating hospital, Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China (JST). METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal study examined the hospital-level data of JST and city-level data of tertiary hospitals of Beijing, China (BJT) 2009-2015. Rank-sum tests and join-point regression analyses were used to assess absolute changes and differences in trends, respectively. RESULTS: In absolute terms, after the UZDMP implementation, there were increased annual patient-visits and decreased ratios of medicine-to-healthcare-charges (RMOH) in JST outpatient and inpatient services; however, in outpatient service, physician work-days decreased and physician-workload and inflation-adjusted per-visit healthcare charges increased, while the inpatient physician work-days increased and inpatient mortality-rate reduced. Interestingly, the decreasing trend in inpatient mortality-rate was neutralized after UZDMP implementation. Compared with BJT and under influence of UZDMP, JST outpatient and inpatient services both had increasing trends in annual patient-visits (annual percentage changes[APC] = 8.1% and 6.5%, respectively) and decreasing trends in RMOH (APC = -4.3% and -5.4%, respectively), while JST outpatient services had increasing trend in inflation-adjusted per-visit healthcare charges (APC = 3.4%) and JST inpatient service had decreasing trend in inflation-adjusted per-visit medicine-charges (APC = -5.2%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of UZMDP seems to increase annual patient-visits, reduce RMOH and have different impacts on outpatient and inpatient services in a Chinese urban tertiary hospital.
