The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria
Open accessAbstract
Objectives:The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. Methods:The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. Results:The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. Conclusions:There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes
Drummond, M. E., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198529446.001.0001 · Cited by 13,648
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., & Walsh, S. (1995) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-w · Cited by 1,308
Cited by
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 · Cited by 4,465
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 · Cited by 4,260
2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group
Furlan, A. D., Malmivaara, A., Chou, R., Maher, C. G., Deyo, R. A., Schoene, M., Bronfort, G., & van Tulder, M. W. (2015) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001061 · Cited by 704
Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder
Kelly, J. F., Humphreys, K., & Ferri, M. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012880.pub2 · Cited by 462
O’Mara-Eves, A., Brunton, G., McDaid, D., Oliver, S., Kavanagh, J., Jamal, F., Matosevic, T., Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2013) · Public Health Research · doi:10.3310/phr01040 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Evers, S., Goossens, M., de Vet, H., van Tulder, M., & Ament, A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 240-245
- ISSN
- 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6348
- OpenAlex
- W2131779687
- Cited by
- 856
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0266462305050324
- The paper
- Evers, S., Goossens, M., de Vet, H., van Tulder, M., & Ament, A. (2005). Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462305050324
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.
