The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
Figures
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.
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
“we would argue that the QHES used here is based on Drummond’s guidelines (used in prior reviews) and is designed to cover the same topics, but offers a simpler, quantifiable format that is easier to apply. [32]”
From Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review (2019) · cites this paper as [32]
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
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
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., Augustovski, F., Briggs, A. H., Mauskopf, J., & Loder, E. (2013) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 · Cited by 1,998
Self-citationGuidelines 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-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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-citationCore outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain
Chiarotto, A., Boers, M., Deyo, R. A., Buchbinder, R., Corbin, T. P., Costa, L. O. P., Foster, N. E., Grotle, M., Koes, B. W., Kovacs, F. M., et al. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001117 · Cited by 461
Determining if Telehealth Can Reduce Health System Costs: Scoping Review
Snoswell, C. L., Taylor, M. L., Comans, T. A., Smith, A. C., Gray, L., & Caffery, L. J. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17298 · Cited by 469
“Reason for lower cost in the telehealth group Initial investment in US $ 2019 Findings in US $ 2019CHEERSa score (out of 20) Telehealth modality and clinical focus Reference Saved patient transport costs; saved working hours $199,959.03 including equipment and implementation costs Cost per examination for telehealth w…”
MethodInfluentialThe Handbook of Behavior Change
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N. E., & Lintunen, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318 · Cited by 446
Economic evaluations of Internet interventions for mental health: a systematic review
Donker, T., Blankers, M., Hedman, E., Ljótsson, B., Petrie, K., & Christensen, H. (2015) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291715001427 · Cited by 316
“The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist (Husereau et al. 2013) is a newly developed checklist which aims better reporting of economic evaluations, and ultimately to better health decisions.”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6
- ISSN
- 1478-7547 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3607888
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
