Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T14:09:00.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONSOLIDATED HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION REPORTING STANDARDS (CHEERS) STATEMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2013

Don Husereau ,
Michael Drummond ,
Stavros Petrou ,
Chris Carswell ,
David Moher ,
Dan Greenberg ,
Federico Augustovski ,
Andrew H Briggs ,
Josephine Mauskopf  and
Elizabeth Loder
Don Husereau*
Affiliation:
senior associate; adjunct professor of medicine; senior scientist Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
Michael Drummond
Affiliation:
co-editor-in-chief, Value in Health; professor of health economics Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
Stavros Petrou
Affiliation:
professor of health economics Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Chris Carswell
Affiliation:
editor Pharmacoeconomics, Adis International, Auckland, New Zealand
David Moher
Affiliation:
senior scientist Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
Dan Greenberg
Affiliation:
associate professor and chairman; visiting assistant professor Department of Health Systems Management, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston MA, USA
Federico Augustovski
Affiliation:
director; professor of public health Health Economic Evaluation and Technology Assessment, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires, Argentina; Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Andrew H Briggs
Affiliation:
William R Lindsay chair of health economics, health economics and health technology assessment Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
Josephine Mauskopf
Affiliation:
vice president of health economics RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park NC, USA
Elizabeth Loder
Affiliation:
chief of division; clinical epidemiology editor, BMJ Division of Headache and Pain, Brigham and Women's/Faulkner Neurology, Faulkner Hospital, Boston MA, USA; Clinical Epidemiology Editor, BMJ, London, UK
*
Correspondence to: D Husereau, 879 Winnington Ave, Ottawa, ON K2B 5C4, Canadadonh@donhusereau.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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 (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.

Keywords

Costs and cost analysisBiomedical Research/methods*Biomedical Research/standards*Guidelines as Topic/standards*HumansPublishing/standards*
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 117 - 122
Creative Commons
This article is a joint publication by the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care and the following journals: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, BMC Medicine, BMJ, Clinical Therapeutics, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, The European Journal of Health Economics, Journal of Medical Economics, Pharmacoeconomics, and Value in Health. Each publisher holds its own copyright.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, G, O'Brien, J, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed.Oxford University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;24:244–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Rennie, D, Luft, HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses. JAMA 2000;283:2158–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;25:424–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Drummond, MF. A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 1998;14:1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;12:1086–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Drummond, MF, Jefferson, TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:275–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Gold, MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;276:1339–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;14:259–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Vintzileos, AM, Beazoglou, T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1070–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;21:165–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;8:521–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Davis, JC, Robertson, MC, Comans, T, Scuffham, PA. Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies. Osteoporos Int 2010;22:2449–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Petrou, S, Gray, A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011;342:d1766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Petrou, S, Gray, A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011;342:d1548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 in Health (forthcoming).Google Scholar
22.Moher, D, Schulz, KF, Simera, I, Altman, DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;37:964–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar