The study aims to systematically review all articles on the economic evaluation (EE) of coronary stenting, to critically assess the reporting quality, and to summarize the results.

A systematic search was undertaken through seven databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang data, Vip data and SinoMed.) from inception until March 2021, to identify economic evaluation articles comparing coronary stenting with other therapies, or among different stenting procedures. After screening articles and extracting data independently, we summarized methods, contents, and outcomes of the included articles and appraised their methodological quality using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. Then, the literature scores were standardized as a proportion of the total score, and stepwise multiple regression was constructed to verify the factors that might influence the quality of literature.

Of the 3,622 publications identified, 59 articles were included in this review. There were 33 cost-effectiveness studies and 26 were cost-utility studies. The quality of the reports varied between studies, with a standardized mean score of 0.76 (0.40-0.98). According to the Cheers checklist, “Introduction” had the lowest overall score (0.53), with many articles deficient in the description of the study’s perspective; “Discussion” had the highest overall score (0.86), with nearly three-quarters of the articles reporting the full content; “Title and abstract”, “Methods”, “Results”, and “Other” scored 0.71, 0.78, 0.74 and 0.66, respectively. According to the results of the stepwise multiple regression model, “Published year”, “National type”, and “Type of economic analysis” research were significantly associated with the quality of literature.

The quality of current research reports on the economics of coronary stenting is generally satisfactory, but there is potential for improvement and high quality reports can provide evidence to support decision making for policy makers.