The Library

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement

Tools

Husereau, Donald Robert, Drummond, Michael, Petrou, Stavros, Carswell, Chris, Moher, David, Greenberg, Dan, Augustovski, Federico, Briggs, Andrew H., Mauskopf, Josephine and Loder, Elizabeth. (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMC Medicine, Volume 11 (Number 1). Article no. 80. ISSN 1741-7015

[img]
Preview
 Text
WRAP_Petrou_1741-7015-11-80.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.
Download (400Kb) | Preview

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 webcite).

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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Medical economics -- Research, Medical care, Cost of, Public health administration -- Research
Journal or Publication Title: BMC Medicine
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN: 1741-7015
Official Date: 2013
Dates:
DateEvent
2013Published
Volume: Volume 11
Number: Number 1
Page Range: Article no. 80
Identifier: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-80
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access
Version or Related Resource: This article is a joint publication by BMC Medicine, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, BMJ, Clinical Therapeutics, The European Journal of Health Economics, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Medical Economics, Pharmacoeconomics and Value in Health. Each publisher holds its own copyright.
References:

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance G, O’Brien J, Stoddart GL: Methods for
the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd edition. New York:
Oxford University Press; 2005.
2. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U,
et al: Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology
assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health
Care 2008, 24:244–258.
3. Rennie D, Luft HS: Pharmacoeconomic analyses. JAMA 2000,
283:2158–2160.
4. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Bell CM: The quality of
reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med
2000, 132:964.
5. Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Stone PW, Olchanski NV, Neumann PJ: Quality of
abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses. Med
Decis Making 2005, 25:424–428.
6. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D: Does use of the
CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of
randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane
review. Syst Rev 2012, 1:60.
7. Drummond MF: A reappraisal of economic evaluation of
pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 1998, 14:1–9.
8. McGhan WF, Al M, Doshi JA, Kamae I, Marx SE, Rindress D: The ISPOR Good
Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task
Force report. Value Health 2009, 12:1086–1099.
9. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology:
Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann
Intern Med 1995, 123:61–70.
10. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers
of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996, 313:275–283.
11. Gold MR: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford
University Press; 1996.
12. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR: Recommendations for
reporting cost-effectiveness analyses, Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in
Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996, 276:1339–1341.
13. Nuijten MJ, Pronk MH, Brorens MJ, Hekster YA, Lockefeer JH, de Smet PA, et
al: Reporting format for economic evaluation: Part II: Focus on modelling
studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1998, 14:259–268.
14. Vintzileos AM, Beazoglou T: Design, execution, interpretation, and
reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2004, 191:1070–1076.
15. Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M: Increasing the generalizability of
economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and
reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005, 21:165–171.
16. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, et al: Good
research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials:
the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 2005, 8:521–533.
17. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D:
Evidence and value: impact on decisionmaking—the EVIDEM framework
and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Rev 2008, 8:270.
18. Davis JC, Robertson MC, Comans T, Scuffham PA: Guidelines for
conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention
strategies. Osteoporos Int 2010, 22:2449–2459.
19. Petrou S, Gray A: Economic evaluation using decision analytical
modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011, 342:d1766.
20. Petrou S, Gray A: Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled
trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011, 342:d1548.
21. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D,
et al: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards
(CHEERS)—Explanation and elaboration: A report of the ISPOR Health
Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force. Value Health
2013, 16:231–250.
22. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG: Guidance for developers of
health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010, 7:e1000217.
23. Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, et al: Describing reporting guidelines for
health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epi 2011, 64:718–42.
24. Campbell SM, Hann M, Roland MO, Quayle JA, Shekelle PG: The effect of
panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi
survey: results of a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 1999,
37:964–968.
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/53869

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics