Cited by 1,998Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in Research

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

Open access
Husereau, Don, Drummond, Michael, Petrou, Stavros, Carswell, Chris, Moher, David, Greenberg, Dan, Augustovski, Federico, Briggs, Andrew H. +2 more·2013·Value in Health

Abstract

Background Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.Objective The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.Methods The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.Results Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).Conclusions We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

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 · 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002

Cites

138 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Walker D., Wilson R., Sharma R., et al. Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK114545/. [Accessed November 29, 2012].
  2. Simon J, Gray A, Duley L. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic magnesium sulphate for 9996 women with pre-eclampsia from 33 countries: economic evaluation of the Magpie Trial. BJOG 2006;113:144-51.
  3. Colbourn TE, Asseburg C, Bojke L, et al. Preventive strategies for group B streptococcal and other bacterial infections in early infancy: cost effectiveness and value of information analyses. BMJ 2007;335:655.
  4. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996;5:141-54: Cited by: Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, et al. Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005;330:1239..
  5. Shi L, Hodges M, Drummond M, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: an international perspective: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report-part VI. Value Health 2010;13:28-33.
  6. Department of Health. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2006-07 for NHS Trusts. London: Department of Health, 2008: Cited by: Epstein D, Bojke L, Sculpher MJ. Laparoscopic fundoplication compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: cost effectiveness study. BMJ 2009;339:b2576..
  7. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2008. Canterbury: University of Kent, 2008: Cited by: Epstein D, Bojke L, Sculpher MJ. Laparoscopic fundoplication compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: cost effectiveness study. BMJ 2009;339:b2576..

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., Augustovski, F., Briggs, A. H., Mauskopf, J., & Loder, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Universidad de Buenos Aires (AR)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • RTI Health Solutions (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Husereau, Don
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-03
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
231-250
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143025931
Cited by
1,998
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 117 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 302 · 2021: 296 · 2020: 243 · 2019: 186 · 2018: 181 · 2017: 156 · 2016: 123 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 27
FWCI
233.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Kela
  • Medical Research Council
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
CHEERS, reporting guidelines, health economic evaluation, reporting quality, reporting checklist, transparency, model-based economic evaluation, peer review, medical editors, Delphi consensus, publication guidelines, health decision-making
MeSH terms
Authorship, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Delphi Technique, Economics, Medical, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Guidelines as Topic, Peer Review, Research, Journalism, Medical, Advisory Committees, Biomedical Research, Resource Allocation, Checklist

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