Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Journal of Medical Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 713-719

  Husereau, Don ^a,b,c   Drummond, Michael ^d   Petrou, Stavros ^e   Carswell, Chris ^f   Moher, David ^g   Greenberg, Dan ^h,i   Augustovski, Federico ^j,k   Briggs, Andrew H ^l   Mauskopf, Josephine ^m  

^a INSTITUTE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

^d UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^f Pharmacoeconomics   (New Zealand)

^g OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^h BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

ⁱ TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^j INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND HEALTH POLICY   (Argentina)

^k UNIVERSIDAD DE BUENOS AIRES   (Argentina)

^l UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^m RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Biomedical Research methods; Biomedical Research standards; Costs and cost analysis; Guidelines as Topic standards; Humans; Publishing standards

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; LIKERT SCALE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; CHECKLIST; CONSENSUS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; ECONOMICS, MEDICAL; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 84878915895     PISSN: 13696998     EISSN: 1941837X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2013.784591     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005
2. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, 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
3. Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses. JAMA 2000;283:2158-60
4. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, et al. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:964
5. Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Stone PW, et al. Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Making 2005;25:424-8
6. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. 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, et al. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force report. Value Health 2009;12:1086-99
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;313:275-83
11. Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
12. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1339-41
13. Nuijten MJ, Pronk MH, Brorens MJ, et al. Reporting format for economic evaluation: Part II: focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14:259-68
14. Vintzileos AM, Beazoglou T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191: 1070-6
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
16. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs 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.
17. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. 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, et al. Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies. Osteoporos Int 2010;22:2449-59
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, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)-Explanation and elaboration: a Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013;16:231-50
22. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. 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, et al. 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