Welcome to visit Zhongnan Medical Journal Press Series journal website!
Zhongnan Medical Journal Press Series of Journals Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine of Wuhan University

The title
  • The title
  • The keywords
  • The author
Submit
Home Articles Vol 35,2026 No.3 Detail

Multi-center drug use evaluation of Cinobufagin capsules based on weighted TOPSIS method

Published on Mar. 27, 2026Total Views: 52 times Total Downloads: 12 times Download Mobile

Author: CAI Huiya 1 NAN Tingting 2 TAN Changli 3 LI Yimin 1 CHEN Qiongying 1 JIANG Chunjiao 1 ZHANG Jinhua 4

Affiliation: 1. Department of Pharmacy, The Second Hospital of Zhangzhou, Zhangzhou 363100, Fujian Province, China 2. Department of Pharmacy, Xiamen Haicang Hospital, Xiamen 361026, Fujian Province, China 3. Department of Pharmacy, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou 341000, Jiangxi Province, China 4. Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Maternity and Children’s Hospital, Fuzhou 350001, China

Keywords: Cinobufagin capsules Drug use evaluation Weighted TOPSIS method Delphi method

DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1005-0698.202507049

Reference: CAI Huiya, NAN Tingting, TAN Changli, LI Yimin, CHEN Qiongying, JIANG Chunjiao, ZHANG Jinhua. Multi-center drug use evaluation of Cinobufagin capsules based on weighted TOPSIS method[J]. Yaowu Liuxingbingxue Zazhi, 2026, 35(3): 288-294. DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1005-0698.202507049.[Article in Chinese]

  • Abstract
  • Full-text
  • References
Abstract

Objective  To establish drug use evaluation (DUE) standards of Cinobufagin capsules and to evaluate the application rationality of Cinobufagin capsules, providing a reference for rational clinical drug use.

Methods  Based on the drug instructions, the detailed DUE criteria were established through literature review and expert consultation using the Delphi method. The weighted technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method was applied to evaluate the rationality of medical records of inpatients who used Cinobufagin capsules in three hospitals including the Second Hospital of Zhangzhou from January 2023 to June 2024.

Results  The DUE criteria for Cinobufagin capsules was finally established, including 3 first-level indicators (medication in-dications, medication process and medication results) and 8 second-level indicators (such as indications, efficacy assessment). A total of 538 medical records were included, among which 303 were from The Second Hospital of Zhangzhou, 137 from Xiamen Haicang Hospital, and 98 from First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University. There were 402 cases (74.72%) had relative proximity Ci ≥80% (rational); 73 cases (13.57%) had 60% ≤Ci <80% (basically rational), and 63 cases (11.71%) had Ci <60% (irrational). The main unreasonable evaluation indicators were efficacy assessment, indication, and dosage.

Conclusion  The established DUE criteria of Cinobufagin capsules demonstrated strong scientific validity, practicality, and feasibility. The rationality evaluation of Cinobufagin capsules showed that the clinical applications of the three hospitals were basically rational, but there were still some problems such as inappropriate indications, improper dosage and lack of efficacy evaluation.

Full-text
Please download the PDF version to read the full text: download
References

1. Li FJ, Hu JH, Ren X, et al. Toad venom: a comprehensive review of chemical constituents, anticancer activities, and mechanisms[J]. Arch Pharm (Weinheim), 2021, 354(7): e2100060. DOI: 10.1002/ardp.202100060.

2. 刘旭, 邵瑞, 田晓轩, 等. 华蟾素抗肿瘤研究进展[J]. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2019, 25(5): 229-234. [Liu X, Shao R, Tian XX, et al. Research progress on anti-tumor of cinobufacini[J]. Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae, 2019, 25(5): 229-234.] DOI: 10.13422/j.cnki.syfjx.20190528.

3. Afanasjeva J, Burk M, Cunningham FF, et al. ASHP guidelines on medication-use evaluation[J]. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 2021, 78(2): 168-175. DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxaa393.

4. Linstone HA, Turoff M, eds. The Delphi method: techniques and applications[M]. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1975: 1-300.

5. 程莉玲, 曹健. 加权TOPSIS法在医院综合评价中的应用[J]. 中国医院统计, 2006, 13(1): 17-19. [Cheng LL, Cao J. Application of weighted TOPSIS in comprehensive evaluation of hospital[J]. Chinese Journal of Hospital Statistics, 2006, 13(1): 17-19.] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5253.2006.01.006.

6. 周岱翰, 主编. 中医肿瘤学[M]. 广州: 广东高等教育出版社, 2023: 46-48, 682.

7. 中国临床肿瘤学会指南工作委员会. 中国临床肿瘤学会（CSCO）恶性血液病诊疗指南2023 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2023: 825-918.

8. 中国医师协会疼痛科医师分会, 中华医学会疼痛学分会, 国家疼痛专业医疗质量控制中心, 等. 癌症相关性疼痛评估中国专家共识（2023版）[J]. 中国疼痛医学杂志, 2023, 29(12): 881-886. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9852.2023.12.001.

9. 中华医学会肝病学分会, 中华医学会感染病学分会. 慢性乙型肝炎防治指南（2022年版）[J]. 中华传染病杂志, 2023, 41(1): 3-28. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn311365-20230220-00050.

10. 中国药典临床用药须知2020年版. 中药成方制剂卷[S]. 2022: 132.

11. 北京市疼痛治疗质量控制和改进中心癌痛专家组. 癌痛规范化治疗中成药合理使用专家共识[J]. 中国疼痛医学杂志, 2021, 27(1): 9-17. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9852.2021.01.003.

12. 中华中医药学会肝胆病专业委员会, 中国民族医药学会肝病专业委员会. 慢性乙型肝炎中医诊疗指南（2018年版） [J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2018, 34(12): 2520-2525. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.12.007.

13. 国家卫生健康委办公厅, 国家中医药局办公室. 癌症疼痛诊疗规范（2018年版）[J]. 全科医学临床与教育, 2019, 17(1): 4-8. DOI: 10.13558/j.cnki.issn1672-3686.2019.01.002.

14. 梁跃红, 何舰, 周晓昕, 等. 传染病暴发/流行风险评估指标体系的构建[J]. 实用预防医学, 2023, 30(5): 621-625. [Liang YH, He J, Zhou XX, et al. Construction of the risk assessment index system for outbreak/epidemic of infectious diseases[J]. Practical Preventive Medicine, 2023, 30(5): 621-625.] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2023.05.027.

15. 杜亚玲, 李欣宇, 杨新惠, 等. 基于德尔菲法构建药物重整过程中药物差异分类工具[J]. 中国医院药学杂志, 2022 42(13): 1376-1381. [Du YL, Li XY, Yang XH, et al. Using the Delphi method to construct a classification taxonomy for medication discrepancies identified through medication reconciliation[J]. Chinese Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 2022, 42(13): 1376-1381.] DOI: 10.13286/j.1001-5213.2022.13.16.

16. 刘继斌, 曲成毅, 王瑞花. 基于属性AHM的Topsis综合评价及其应用[J]. 现代预防医学, 2006, 33(10): 1862-1863. [Liu JB, Qu CY, Wang RH. The comprehensive evaluation of Topsis based on attribute AHM and its application[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2006, 33(10): 1862-1863.] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-8507.2006.10.049.

17. 李建明, 刘庆欧, 曲成毅. 综合评价中两种指标权重的确定方法——相似权法和属性AHM赋权法[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2004, 33(6): 492-494. [Li JM, Liu QO, Qu CY. Two methods of determining index weight in comprehensive evaluation: similar weight method and attribute AHM weighting method[J]. Shanxi Medical Journal, 2004, 33(6): 492-494.] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-9926.2004.06.015.

18. 李美娟, 刘秀梅, 李雷, 等. 基于加权TOPSIS法的氨甲环酸氯化钠注射液药物利用评价[J]. 药物流行病学杂志, 2023, 32(12): 1321-1330. [Li MJ, Liu XM, Li L, et al. Drug use evaluation of tranexamic acid and sodium chloride injection based on weighted TOPSIS method[J]. Chinese Journal of Pharmacoepidemiology, 2023, 32(12): 1321-1330.] DOI: 10.19960/j.issn.1005-0698.202312001.

19. 陈国权, 江丽, 张进华. 基于加权TOPSIS法的重组人凝血因子Ⅶa的药物利用评价[J]. 药物流行病学杂志, 2023, 32(4): 384-390. [Chen GQ, Jiang L, Zhang JH. Drug use evaluation of recombinant human coagulation factor Ⅶa based on weighted TOPSIS method[J]. Chinese Journal of Pharmacoepidemiology, 2023, 32(4): 384-390.] DOI: 10.19960/j.issn.1005-0698.202304004.

20. Jia J, Li J, Zheng Q, et al. A research update on the antitumor effects of active components of Chinese medicine ChanSu[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 1014637. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1014637.

21. 杨宝峰, 主编. 药理学, 第8版[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2014: 234-240.

22. 王树堂, 周瑞生, 周岱翰. 实体瘤中医疗效评价标准的再优化与实施[J]. 中医肿瘤学杂志, 2023, 5(4): 1-5. [Wang ST, Zhou RS, Zhou DH. Re-optimization and implementation of Chinese medicine tumor efficacy evaluation criteria for solid tumors[J]. Journal of Oncology in Chinese Medicine, 2023, 5(4): 1-5.] DOI: 10.19811/j.cnki.ISSN2096-6628.2023.07.001.

23. 罗川, 赵海誉, 边宝林, 等. 华蟾素注射液治疗慢性乙型肝炎的系统评价[J]. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2014, 20(17): 212-218. [Luo C, Zhao HY, Bian BL, et al. Cinobufacini injection for chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review[J]. Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae, 2014, 20(17): 212-218.] DOI: 10.13422/j.cnki.syfjx.2014170212.

24. Cardona V, Ansotegui IJ, Ebisawa M, et al. World allergy organization anaphylaxis guidance 2020[J]. World Allergy Organ J, 2020, 13(10): 100472. DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100472.

25. Muraro A, Roberts G, Worm M, et al. Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the european academy of allergy and clinical immunology[J]. Allergy, 2014, 69(8): 1026-1045. DOI: 10.1111/all.12437.

26. National Comprehensive Cancer Network(NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: adult cancer pain (V2.2024) [EB/OL]. (2024) [ 2024-12-16]. https://www.nccn.org/guidelines.

27. 张海力. 多维度多准则中成药综合评价方法构建及应用研究[D].北京: 中国中医科学院, 2023. DOI: 10.27658/d.cnki.gzzyy.2023.000099.

28. 叶映泉, 李庆林, 朱耀东, 等. 华蟾素抗肿瘤作用机制研究进展[J]. 中药药理与临床, 2022, 38(3): 215-221. [Ye YQ, Li QL, Zhu YD, et al. Research progress on the antitumor mechanism of cinobufagin[J]. Pharmacology and Clinics of Chinese Materia Medica, 2022, 38(3): 215-221.] DOI: 10.13412/j.cnki.zyyl.20211015.003.

Popular papers
Last 6 months