Literature DB >> 23538175

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.

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.
OBJECTIVE: The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.
METHODS: The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.
RESULTS: Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).
CONCLUSIONS: We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.
Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23538175     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  686 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of heat and moisture exchangers compared to usual care for pulmonary rehabilitation after total laryngectomy in Poland.

Authors:  Valesca P Retèl; Cindy van den Boer; Lotte M G Steuten; Sławomir Okła; Frans J Hilgers; Michiel W van den Brekel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 2.  Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.

Authors:  Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

3.  Estimation of Cost for Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in a High-Risk Population in Rural China: Results from a Population-Level Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Fuxiao Li; Xiang Li; Chuanhai Guo; Ruiping Xu; Fenglei Li; Yaqi Pan; Mengfei Liu; Zhen Liu; Chao Shi; Hui Wang; Minmin Wang; Hongrui Tian; Fangfang Liu; Ying Liu; Jingjing Li; Hong Cai; Li Yang; Zhonghu He; Yang Ke
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Systematic Review of the Costs and Benefits of Prescribed Cannabis-Based Medicines for the Management of Chronic Illness: Lessons from Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Samuel Herzog; Marian Shanahan; Peter Grimison; Anh Tran; Nicole Wong; Nicholas Lintzeris; John Simes; Martin Stockler; Rachael L Morton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A Decision-Analytic Model to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Etelcalcetide vs. Cinacalcet.

Authors:  Björn Stollenwerk; Sergio Iannazzo; Ron Akehurst; Michael Adena; Andrew Briggs; Bastian Dehmel; Patrick Parfrey; Vasily Belozeroff
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Insulin Analogues in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Asrul Akmal Shafie; Chin Hui Ng; Yui Ping Tan; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Allister Gibbons; Ella H Leung; Sonia H Yoo
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Value Assessment and Quantitative Benefit-Risk Modelling of Biosimilar Infliximab for Crohn's Disease.

Authors:  Heather Catt; Keith Bodger; Jamie J Kirkham; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Screening for Autoimmune Encephalitis in Patients With First-Episode Psychosis in the United States.

Authors:  Eric L Ross; Jessica E Becker; Jenny J Linnoila; Djøra I Soeteman
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 4.384

Review 10.  Economic evaluations of gastroesophageal reflux disease medical management.

Authors:  Andrew J Gawron; Dustin D French; John E Pandolfino; Colin W Howden
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.