The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations
Open accessAbstract
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Another strength of this study is our comprehensive modelling approach following the best practice guidance [31].”
From Economic evaluation of wearable fitness trackers versus metformin for preventing type 2 diabetes in the UK population (2025) · cites this paper as [31]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The Markov model was implemented in Microsoft Excel, following best practices for health economic modelling from conceptualisation to validation [31] (See supplementary materials for CHEERS checklist).”
From Economic evaluation of wearable fitness trackers versus metformin for preventing type 2 diabetes in the UK population (2025) · cites this paper as [31]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
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
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-citationStaniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j3453 · Cited by 1,983
Self-citationThe Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
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-citationStaniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 · Cited by 1,643
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
Recommendations 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
Sullivan, S., Mauskopf, J., Augustovski, F., Caro, J., Lee, K. M., Minchin, M., Orlewska, E., Penna, P., Barrios, J. R. R., & Shau, W. (2014) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291 · Cited by 1,069
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Walker DG, Wilson RF, Sharma R, et al. Best practices for conducting economic evaluations in health care: a systematic review of quality assessment tools. Agency Healthc Res Qual. 2012; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114545/. Accessed 21 July 2021.
- Drummond M. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Marcus, H. J., Ramirez, P. T., Khan, D. Z., Horsfall, H. L., HANRAHAN, J. G., Williams, S. C., Beard, D. J., Bhat, R. A., Catchpole, K. C., Cook, A., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02732-7 · Cited by 213
Lifetime Health Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Tirzepatide and Semaglutide in US Adults
Hwang, J. H., Laiteerapong, N., Huang, E. S., & Kim, D. D. (2025) · JAMA Health Forum · doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5586 · Cited by 77
The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review
Wang, S., Song, R., Xu, Z., Chen, M. S., Tanna, G. L. D., Downey, L. E., Jan, S., & Si, L. (2024) · Global Health Research and Policy · doi:10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y · Cited by 61
Moghadas, S. M., Shoukat, A., Bawden, C. E., Langley, J. M., Singer, B. H., Fitzpatrick, M. C., & Galvani, A. P. (2023) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciad658 · Cited by 51
Hu, W., Joseph, S., Li, R., Woods, E., Sun, J., Shen, M., Jan, C. L., Zhu, Z., He, M., & Zhang, L. (2024) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102387 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C., Caulley, L., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Greenberg, D., Loder, E., Mauskopf, J., Mullins, C. D., Petrou, S., Pwu, R.-F., Staniszewska, S., & on behalf of CHEERS 2022 ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- University of York (GB)
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- Springer Nature (New Zealand) (NZ)
- University of Utah (US)
- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
- Harvard University (US)
- RTI International (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Ministry of Health and Welfare (TW)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Husereau, Don
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2022-01-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-23
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8753858
- OpenAlex
- W4206071468
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 125 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 9
- FWCI
- 65.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0616-10103, NIHR202402)
- 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
- CHEERS 2022, health economic evaluation, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, stakeholder engagement, patient and public involvement, health technology assessment, transparency in decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Peer Review, 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
