Husereau, Don, Drummond, Michael, Augustovski, Federico, de Bekker-Grob, Esther, Briggs, Andrew H., Carswell, Chris, Caulley, Lisa, Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn, Greenberg, Dan, Loder, Elizabeth, Mauskopf, Josephine, Mullins, C. Daniel, Petrou, Stavros, Pwu, Raoh-Fang and Staniszewska, Sophie (2022) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement : updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, 28 (2). pp. 146-155. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2022.28.2.146 ISSN 2376-0540.

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

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.

Economic evaluations of health interventions are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. They can provide useful information to policy makers, payers, health professionals, patients, and the public about choices that affect health and the use of resources. Economic evaluations are a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published economic evaluations1-3 and availability of reporting guidance,4 there is a considerable lack of standardisation and transparency in reporting.5,6 There remains a need for reporting guidance to help authors, journal editors, and peer reviewers in their identification and interpretation.

The goal of the original Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement,4 was to recommend the minimum amount of information required for reporting of published health economic evaluations. The statement consisted of a 24-item checklist and Explanation and Elaboration Report.4 CHEERS was intended to help authors provide accurate information on which health interventions are being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings are, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. In doing so, it can also aid interested researchers in replicating research findings. Some checklist items (such as title, abstract) were also included to aid those researching economic evaluation literature. The CHEERS statement consolidated previous health economic evaluation reporting guidelines7-18 into one current, useful reporting guidance.

Since the original publication of the CHEERS statement, there have been several developments that have motivated an update. These include feedback on perceived limitations of CHEERS, including criticism of its neglect of addressing reporting of cost-benefit analyses.19 CHEERS has also been observed to be used inappropriately, as a tool to assess quality of methods, for which other tools exist,20 rather than the quality of reporting.5 It has also been used as a tool to quantitatively score studies in systematic reviews, an approach that could mislead readers and reviewers21 as it has not been designed for this purpose.

There have also been methods developments in economic evaluation motivating an update. This includes an update of methods proposed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (“Second Panel”), which contained new recommendations concerning the perspective of economic evaluations, the classification of costs and benefits in a structured table, and the inclusion of related and unrelated healthcare costs in added years of life.22 Health technology assessment bodies have also updated their guidance on conducting and appraising economic evaluations.23,24

There have also been increasing calls for the use of health economic analysis plans25 and the use of open source models.26-30 The latter may be of particular importance as published economic evaluations are increasingly available in journals with broad data-sharing policies. Increased use of, and guidance for, economic evaluations to support policy decisions in immunisation programmes31,32 and global health in lower and middle income countries33 have also motivated an update. There has also been an increase in the number of economic evaluations that attempt to capture consequences extending beyond health outcomes, such as equity and distributional effects.34,35

Finally, the increased role of stakeholder involvement in health research and health technology assessment, including patients and the public, suggests the need for reporting guidance to recognise a broader audience.36-38 All of these developments suggest the scope of guidance for reporting economic evaluations should be expanded and updated.

The objective of this article is to provide a brief overview of the CHEERS 2022 statement, which consists of a 28-item checklist, and an Explanation and Elaboration report with accompanying user tools and guidance. More detailed guidance and illustrative examples on how to use the checklist can be found in the larger Explanation and Elaboration report.39

Item Type:	Journal Article
Divisions:	Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title:	Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
Publisher:	JMCP
ISSN:	2376-0540
Official Date:	February 2022
Dates:	Date Event February 2022 Published
Volume:	28
Number:	2
Page Range:	pp. 146-155
DOI:	10.18553/jmcp.2022.28.2.146
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access (Creative Commons)

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item