Cited by 381Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in Research

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Open access
Husereau, Don, Drummond, Michael, Petrou, Stavros, Carswell, Chris, Moher, David, Greenberg, Dan, Augustovski, Federico, Briggs, Andrew H +3 more·2013·Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

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 (http://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.

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 · 10.1186/1478-7547-11-6

Cites

25 of 25 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

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., & on behalf of the CHEERS Task Force
Affiliations
  • Institute of Health Economics (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
Venue
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Published
2013
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
6
ISSN
1478-7547 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3044545425
Cited by
381
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
18.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
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
reporting guidelines, health economic evaluation, checklists, Delphi consensus, peer review, medical journal editors, ISPOR, health decision-making

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