Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 3/2013

01-06-2013

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

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/​EconomicPubGuide​lines.​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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G., O’Brien, J., Stoddart, G.L. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York (2005) Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G., O’Brien, J., Stoddart, G.L. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)
2.
go back to reference Drummond, M.F., Schwartz, J.S., Jönsson, B., Luce, B.R., Neumann, P.J., Siebert, U., et al.: Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24, 244–258 (2008)PubMed Drummond, M.F., Schwartz, J.S., Jönsson, B., Luce, B.R., Neumann, P.J., Siebert, U., et al.: Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24, 244–258 (2008)PubMed
4.
go back to reference Neumann, P.J., Stone, P.W., Chapman, R.H., Sandberg, E.A., Bell, C.M.: The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann. Intern. Med. 132, 964 (2000)PubMedCrossRef Neumann, P.J., Stone, P.W., Chapman, R.H., Sandberg, E.A., Bell, C.M.: The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann. Intern. Med. 132, 964 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rosen, A.B., Greenberg, D., Stone, P.W., Olchanski, N.V., Neumann, P.J.: Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses. Med. Decis. Making 25, 424–428 (2005)PubMedCrossRef Rosen, A.B., Greenberg, D., Stone, P.W., Olchanski, N.V., Neumann, P.J.: Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses. Med. Decis. Making 25, 424–428 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Turner, L., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Schulz, K.F., 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. 1, 60 (2012)PubMedCrossRef Turner, L., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Schulz, K.F., 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. 1, 60 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Drummond, M.F.: A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 14, 1–9 (1998)PubMedCrossRef Drummond, M.F.: A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 14, 1–9 (1998)PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference McGhan, W.F., Al, M., Doshi, J.A., Kamae, I., Marx, S.E., Rindress, D.: The ISPOR good practices for quality improvement of cost-effectiveness research task force report. Value Health 12, 1086–1099 (2009)PubMedCrossRef McGhan, W.F., Al, M., Doshi, J.A., Kamae, I., Marx, S.E., Rindress, D.: The ISPOR good practices for quality improvement of cost-effectiveness research task force report. Value Health 12, 1086–1099 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann. Intern. Med. 123, 61–70 (1995) Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann. Intern. Med. 123, 61–70 (1995)
10.
go back to reference Drummond, M.F., Jefferson, T.O.: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 313, 275–283 (1996)PubMedCrossRef Drummond, M.F., Jefferson, T.O.: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 313, 275–283 (1996)PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gold, M.R.: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York (1996) Gold, M.R.: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)
12.
go back to reference Siegel, J.E., Weinstein, M.C., Russell, L.B., Gold, M.R.: Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276, 1339–1341 (1996)PubMedCrossRef Siegel, J.E., Weinstein, M.C., Russell, L.B., Gold, M.R.: Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276, 1339–1341 (1996)PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Nuijten, M.J., Pronk, M.H., Brorens, M.J., Hekster, Y.A., Lockefeer, J.H., de Smet, P.A., et al.: Reporting format for economic evaluation: part II: focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 14, 259–268 (1998)PubMedCrossRef Nuijten, M.J., Pronk, M.H., Brorens, M.J., Hekster, Y.A., Lockefeer, J.H., de Smet, P.A., et al.: Reporting format for economic evaluation: part II: focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 14, 259–268 (1998)PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Vintzileos, A.M., Beazoglou, T.: Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 191, 1070–1076 (2004)PubMedCrossRef Vintzileos, A.M., Beazoglou, T.: Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 191, 1070–1076 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference 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 21, 165–171 (2005)PubMed 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 21, 165–171 (2005)PubMed
16.
go back to reference 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 8, 521–533 (2005)PubMedCrossRef 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 8, 521–533 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Goetghebeur, M.M., Wagner, M., Khoury, H., Levitt, R.J., Erickson, L.J., Rindress, D.: Evidence and value: impact on decisionmaking—the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv. Rev. 8, 270 (2008)CrossRef Goetghebeur, M.M., Wagner, M., Khoury, H., Levitt, R.J., Erickson, L.J., Rindress, D.: Evidence and value: impact on decisionmaking—the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv. Rev. 8, 270 (2008)CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Davis, J.C., Robertson, M.C., Comans, T., Scuffham, P.A.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies. Osteoporos. Int. 22, 2449–2459 (2010)PubMedCrossRef Davis, J.C., Robertson, M.C., Comans, T., Scuffham, P.A.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies. Osteoporos. Int. 22, 2449–2459 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Petrou, S., Gray, A.: Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 342, d1766 (2011)PubMedCrossRef Petrou, S., Gray, A.: Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 342, d1766 (2011)PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Petrou, S., Gray, A.: Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 342, d1548 (2011)PubMedCrossRef Petrou, S., Gray, A.: Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 342, d1548 (2011)PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference 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 16, 231–250 (2013) 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 16, 231–250 (2013)
22.
go back to reference Moher, D., Schulz, K.F., Simera, I., Altman, D.G.: Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 7, e1000217 (2010)PubMedCrossRef Moher, D., Schulz, K.F., Simera, I., Altman, D.G.: Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 7, e1000217 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Moher, D., Weeks, L., Ocampo, M., et al.: Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epi. 64, 718–742 (2011) Moher, D., Weeks, L., Ocampo, M., et al.: Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epi. 64, 718–742 (2011)
24.
go back to reference Campbell, S.M., Hann, M., Roland, M.O., Quayle, J.A., Shekelle, P.G.: The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial. Med. Care 37, 964–968 (1999)PubMedCrossRef Campbell, S.M., Hann, M., Roland, M.O., Quayle, J.A., Shekelle, P.G.: The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial. Med. Care 37, 964–968 (1999)PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement
Publication date
01-06-2013
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0471-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

The European Journal of Health Economics 3/2013 Go to the issue