The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION REPORTING STANDARDS (CHEERS) STATEMENT
Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The quality of reporting the economic evaluation evidence was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) [26] checklist for full economic evaluations and using a Modified version of CHEERS checklist for partial economic evaluation.”
From Cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
Cites
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
Self-citationCost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ
Drummond, M. F., & Jefferson, T. O. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 · Cited by 1,827
Self-citationGuidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · Cited by 1,437
Self-citationRecommendations for Reporting Cost-effectiveness Analyses
Siegel, J. E. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160061034 · Cited by 1,147
Siegel, J. E. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.276.16.1339 · Cited by 1,040
Ramsey, S. D., Willke, R. J., Briggs, A. H., Brown, R. E., Buxton, M. J., Chawla, A., Cook, J. R., Glick, H. A., Liljas, B., Petitti, D. B., et al. (2005) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00045.x · Cited by 720
Self-citationTurner, L., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., & Moher, D. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-60 · Cited by 628
Self-citationDrummond, M., Schwartz, J. S., Jönsson, B., Luce, B. R., Neumann, P. J., Siebert, U., & Sullivan, S. D. (2008) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462308080343 · Cited by 489
Self-citationEconomic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
Petrou, S., & Gray, A. (2011) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.d1548 · Cited by 313
Self-citationEconomic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
Petrou, S., & Gray, A. (2011) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.d1766 · Cited by 278
Self-citationDrummond, M., Manca, A., & Sculpher, M. (2005) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462305050221 · Cited by 249
Self-citationEvidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications
Goetghebeur, M. M., Wagner, M., Khoury, H., Levitt, R. J., Erickson, L. J., & Rindress, D. (2008) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-270 · Cited by 232
The Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 1976–1997
Neumann, P. J., Stone, P. W., Chapman, R. H., Sandberg, E. A., & Bell, C. M. (2000) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-12-200006200-00007 · Cited by 208
Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology: A Report on Principles
Hillman, A., Schwartz, J., Eilers, R., Pauly, M., Bloom, B., Eisenberg, J., Willian, M., Donaldson, M., Lazar, A., Leatherman, S., et al. (1995) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-123-1-199507010-00011 · Cited by 208
Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review
Moher, D., Weeks, L., Ocampo, M., Seely, D., Sampson, M., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Miller, D., Simera, I., Grimshaw, J., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013 · Cited by 151
Self-citationThe Effect of Panel Membership and Feedback on Ratings in a Two-Round Delphi Survey
Campbell, S., Hann, M., Roland, M. O., Quayle, J. A., & Shekelle, P. (1999) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199909000-00012 · Cited by 132
Rennie, D., & Luft, H. S. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.16.2158 · Cited by 107
The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report
McGhan, W. F., Al, M., Doshi, J. A., Kamae, I., Marx, S. E., & Rindress, D. (2009) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x · Cited by 86
Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies
Davis, J. C., Robertson, M., Comans, T., & Scuffham, P. (2011) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1482-0 · Cited by 85
A Reappraisal of Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals
Drummond, M. (1998) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-199814010-00001 · Cited by 50
Self-citationDesign, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics.
Vintzileos, A., & Beazoglou, T. (2004) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.021 · Cited by 45
Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
Rosen, A. B., Greenberg, D., Stone, P. W., Olchanski, N., & Neumann, P. J. (2005) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x05278932 · Cited by 35
Self-citationReporting Format for Economic Evaluation
Nuijten, M., Pronk, M., Brorens, M. J., Hekster, Y., Lockefeer, J., de Smet, P. D., Bonsel, G., & van der Kuy, A. (1998) · PharmacoEconomics (Auckland) · doi:10.2165/00019053-199814030-00003 · Cited by 27
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Husereau, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force, Value in Health
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., Kuntz, K. M., Meltzer, D. O., Owens, D. K., Prosser, L. A., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12195 · Cited by 3,069
Primrose, J. N., Fox, R., Palmer, D. H., Malik, H., Prasad, R. K., Mirza, D., Anthony, A., Corrie, P. G., Falk, S. J., Finch-Jones, M., et al. (2019) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30915-x · Cited by 1,289
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C., Caulley, L., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Greenberg, D., Loder, E., et al. (2022) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 · Cited by 847
Self-citationManickam, K., McClain, M. R., Demmer, L., Biswas, S., Kearney, H. M., Malinowski, J. R., Massingham, L. J., Miller, D. E., Yu, T. W., & Hisama, F. M. (2021) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41436-021-01242-6 · Cited by 675
Braithwaite, I., Callender, T., Bullock, M., & Aldridge, R. W. (2020) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30184-9 · Cited by 330
Metadata
- 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 Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Husereau, Don
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 117-122
- ISSN
- 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6348
- OpenAlex
- W2037823404
- Cited by
- 573
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 41.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- health economic evaluation, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, Delphi consensus, peer review, medical journal editors, ISPOR, health decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delphi Technique, Guidelines as Topic, Advisory Committees, Consensus, Biomedical Research, Checklist, Research Report
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
