Literature DB >> 23529207

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Don Husereau1, Michael Drummond, Stavros Petrou, Chris Carswell, David Moher, Dan Greenberg, Federico Augustovski, Andrew H Briggs, Josephine Mauskopf, Elizabeth Loder.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23529207     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0032-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  22 in total

1.  The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  S M Campbell; M Hann; M O Roland; J A Quayle; P G Shekelle
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997.

Authors:  P J Neumann; P W Stone; R H Chapman; E A Sandberg; C M Bell
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-06-20       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Reporting format for economic evaluation. Part II: Focus on modelling studies.

Authors:  M J Nuijten; M H Pronk; M J Brorens; Y A Hekster; J H Lockefeer; P A de Smet; G Bonsel; A van der Kuy
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Moher; Laura Weeks; Mary Ocampo; Dugald Seely; Margaret Sampson; Douglas G Altman; Kenneth F Schulz; Donald Miller; Iveta Simera; Jeremy Grimshaw; John Hoey
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-01-08       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 5.  Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report.

Authors:  Scott Ramsey; Richard Willke; Andrew Briggs; Ruth Brown; Martin Buxton; Anita Chawla; John Cook; Henry Glick; Bengt Liljas; Diana Petitti; Shelby Reed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses.

Authors:  Allison B Rosen; Dan Greenberg; Patricia W Stone; Natalia V Olchanski; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.

Authors:  William F McGhan; Maiwenn Al; Jalpa A Doshi; Isao Kamae; Steven E Marx; Donna Rindress
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1995-07-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.

Authors:  Stavros Petrou; Alastair Gray
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-04-11
View more
  65 in total

Review 1.  Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries.

Authors:  Emelie Heintz; Andreas Gerber-Grote; Salah Ghabri; Francoise F Hamers; Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Renata Slabe-Erker; Thomas Davidson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches.

Authors:  Dyfrig Hughes; Joanna Charles; Dalia Dawoud; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Emily Holmes; Carys Jones; Paul Parham; Catrin Plumpton; Colin Ridyard; Huw Lloyd-Williams; Eifiona Wood; Seow Tien Yeo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Structural Design and Data Requirements for Simulation Modelling in HIV/AIDS: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Xiao Zang; Emanuel Krebs; Linwei Wang; Brandon D L Marshall; Reuben Granich; Bruce R Schackman; Julio S G Montaner; Bohdan Nosyk
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Good practice guidelines for the use of statistical regression models in economic evaluations.

Authors:  Ben Kearns; Roberta Ara; Allan Wailoo; Andrea Manca; Monica Hernández Alava; Keith Abrams; Mike Campbell
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Adapting the CHEERS Statement for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Authors:  Sabina Sanghera; Emma Frew; Tracy Roberts
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Development and Use of Disease-Specific (Reference) Models for Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies: An Overview of Key Issues and Potential Solutions.

Authors:  Gerardus W J Frederix; Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Erik J Dasbach; Robyn L Ward
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Overview and Use of Tools for Selecting Modelling Techniques in Health Economic Studies.

Authors:  Huajie Jin; Stewart Robinson; Wenru Shang; Evanthia Achilla; David Aceituno; Sarah Byford
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  A systematic review of the quality of economic models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Maximilian H M Hatz; Reiner Leidl; Nichola A Yates; Björn Stollenwerk
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Are we lacking economic evaluations in gastric cancer treatment?

Authors:  Alyson L Mahar; Abraham El-Sedfy; Savtaj S Brar; Ana Johnson; Natalie Coburn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  Azacitidine for Treating Acute Myeloid Leukaemia with More Than 30 % Bone Marrow Blasts: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal.

Authors:  Irina A Tikhonova; Martin W Hoyle; Tristan M Snowsill; Chris Cooper; Joanna L Varley-Campbell; Claudius E Rudin; Ruben E Mujica Mota
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.