CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 575Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in Research

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

Husereau, Don, Drummond, Michael, Petrou, Stavros, Carswell, Chris, Moher, David, Greenberg, Dan, Augustovski, Federico, Briggs, Andrew H, Mauskopf, Josephine, Loder, Elizabeth·2013·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
DOI 10.1017/s0266462313000160
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266462313000160

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  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

See all 575

Related

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
DOI
10.1017/s0266462313000160
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
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 14 d)
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