Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reporting Quality in Health Economic Evaluation Studies of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

Open access
Yoshioka, Takashi, Azuma, Shintaro, Funada, Satoshi, Itaya, Takahiro, Goto, Rei·2025·Clinical Drug Investigation
DOI 10.1007/s40261-025-01435-wPMC PMC12058961

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This study assessed the reporting quality of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods We conducted a systematic literature search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the International HTA Database) for studies published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2022. Three pairs of reviewers independently screened and reviewed the full text and extracted the data. We included all ICIs approved up to December 31, 2022, in the United States (US), European Union, China, and Japan. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013 (CHEERS 2013). Subgroup analyses were also performed based on the risk of sponsorship bias or citation of CHEERS 2013. Results A total of 5,368 records were identified, 252 of which were included after full-text review. The study design, setting, and ICIs most frequently observed were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses (63.5%), the US (46.0%), and pembrolizumab (38.1%), respectively. Of the 24 items of CHEERS 2013, fully reported items were limited, particularly in the Methods section. Setting and location were not reported in 94.4% of the records. Similar trends were observed in subgroup analysis. Conclusion HEE studies on ICIs between 2014 and 2022 had limited reporting across the 24 items of CHEERS 2013, regardless of sponsorship bias risk or citations. The items on setting and location in the Methods section were particularly underreported, emphasizing the need for transparent reporting in HEE studies of ICIs. Highlights The reporting quality of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013 (CHEERS 2013). However, the reporting quality of HEEs of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which is an emerging health policy issue for the economic burden of cancer, remains unknown. Despite the passage of a decade since the publication of CHEERS 2013, HEE studies on ICIs have generally not fully adhered to the CHEERS 2013 guidelines in the Methods section. This is particularly evident in the setting and location items, even after stratification by the presence or absence of risk of sponsorship bias or whether CHEERS 2013 statement was cited. This study highlights the insufficient reporting of CHEERS items among current HEE studies of ICIs, especially in the Methods section, to researchers who conduct HEE studies of ICIs, and informs policymakers and stakeholders who refer to HEE studies of ICIs about underreporting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40261-025-01435-w

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. PRISMA 2020 the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses updated in 2020
Fig. 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. PRISMA 2020 the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses updated in 2020CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Number of health economic evaluations stratified by whether CHEERS 2013 was cited. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013
Fig. 2 Number of health economic evaluations stratified by whether CHEERS 2013 was cited. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Reporting quality of health economic evaluation studies according to the CHEERS 2013 checklist. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013
Fig. 3 Reporting quality of health economic evaluation studies according to the CHEERS 2013 checklist. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Proportions of the “fully reported” category classified into the presence or absence of the risk of sponsorship bias. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013. Studies classified as “not applicable” were excluded from description. Specifically, seven studies were excluded from the “measurement and valuation of preference-based outcomes” item (five from “present” and two from “absent” groups), and 161 studies were excluded from the “characterising heterogeneity” item (67 from “present” and 94 from “absent” groups)
Fig. 4 Proportions of the “fully reported” category classified into the presence or absence of the risk of sponsorship bias. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013. Studies classified as “not applicable” were excluded from description. Specifically, seven studies were excluded from the “measurement and valuation of preference-based outcomes” item (five from “present” and two from “absent” groups), and 161 studies were excluded from the “characterising heterogeneity” item (67 from “present” and 94 from “absent” groups)CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Proportions of the “fully reported” category were classified according to whether or not the CHEERS 2013 statement was cited. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013. Studies classified as “not applicable” were excluded from description. Specifically, seven studies were excluded from the “measurement and valuation of preference-based outcomes” item (one from “cited” and six from “not cited” groups), and 161 studies were excluded from the “characterising heterogeneity” item (23 from “cited” and 138 from “not cited” groups)
Fig. 5 Proportions of the “fully reported” category were classified according to whether or not the CHEERS 2013 statement was cited. CHEERS 2013 the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013. Studies classified as “not applicable” were excluded from description. Specifically, seven studies were excluded from the “measurement and valuation of preference-based outcomes” item (one from “cited” and six from “not cited” groups), and 161 studies were excluded from the “characterising heterogeneity” item (23 from “cited” and 138 from “not cited” groups)CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Yoshioka, T., Azuma, S., Funada, S., Itaya, T., & Goto, R.
Affiliations
  • SHOWA Medical University (JP)
  • Keio University (JP)
Corresponding author
Yoshioka, Takashi
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Drug Investigation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-03-27
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
223-234
ISSN
  • 0114-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1173-2563
  • 1179-1918
DOI
10.1007/s40261-025-01435-w
PMC
PMC12058961
OpenAlex
W4408922241
Cited by
2
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Drug Investigation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Center (2022-A-25)
  • National Institute of Public Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Keywords
immune checkpoint inhibitors, health economic evaluation, reporting quality, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, pembrolizumab, sponsorship bias, oncology drug pricing
MeSH terms
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Neoplasms, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.