91
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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 ( http://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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

          This article, the third in a 3-part series, describes recommendations for the reporting of cost-effective analyses (CEAs) intended to improve the quality and accessibility of CEA reports. The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, convened by the US Public Health Service. The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, alternative methods, published critiques of CEAs, and criticisms of general CEA methods and reporting practices. The panel developed recommendations through 2 1/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists. These recommendations are proposed to enhance the transparency of study methods, assist analysts in providing complete information, and facilitate the presentation of comparable cost-effectiveness results across studies. Adherence to reporting conventions and attention to providing information required to understand and interpret study results will improve the relevance and accessibility of CEAs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.

            Health technology assessment (HTA) is a dynamic, rapidly evolving process, embracing different types of assessments that inform real-world decisions about the value (i.e., benefits, risks, and costs) of new and existing technologies. Historically, most HTA agencies have focused on producing high quality assessment reports that can be used by a range of decision makers. However, increasingly organizations are undertaking or commissioning HTAs to inform a particular resource allocation decision, such as listing a drug on a national or local formulary, defining the range of coverage under insurance plans, or issuing mandatory guidance on the use of health technologies in a particular healthcare system. A set of fifteen principles that can be used in assessing existing or establishing new HTA activities is proposed, providing examples from existing HTA programs. The principal focus is on those HTA activities that are linked to, or include, a particular resource allocation decision. In these HTAs, the consideration of both costs and benefits, in an economic evaluation, is critical. It is also important to consider the link between the HTA and the decision that will follow. The principles are organized into four sections: (i) "Structure" of HTA programs; (ii) "Methods" of HTA; (iii) "Processes for Conduct" of HTA; and (iv) "Use of HTAs in Decision Making."
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.

              To describe the process of development, content, and methods of implementation of reporting guidelines for health research. A systematic review of publications describing health research reporting guidelines developed using consensus. Eighty-one reporting guidelines for health research were included in the review. The largest number of guidelines do not focus on a specific study type (n=35; 43%), whereas those that do primarily refer to reporting of randomized controlled trials (n=16; 35%). Most of the guidelines (n=76; 94%) include a checklist of recommended reporting items, with a median of 21 checklist items (range: 5-64 items). Forty-seven (58%) reporting guidelines were classified as new guidance. Explanation documents were developed for 11 (14%) reporting guidelines. Reporting-guideline developers provided little information about the guideline development process. Developers of 50 (62%) reporting guidelines encouraged endorsement, most commonly by including guidelines in journal instructions to authors (n=18; 36%). Reporting-guideline developers need to endeavor to maximize the quality of their product. Recently developed guidance is likely to facilitate more robust guideline development. Journal editors can be more confident in endorsing reporting guidelines that have followed these approaches. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation : C/E
                BioMed Central
                1478-7547
                2013
                25 March 2013
                : 11
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
                [3 ]University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
                [4 ]Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
                [5 ]Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
                [6 ]Adis International, Auckland, New Zealand
                [7 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
                [8 ]Department of Health Systems Management, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
                [9 ]Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
                [10 ]Health Economic Evaluation and Technology Assessment, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [11 ]Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [12 ]Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
                [13 ]RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
                [14 ]Division of Headache and Pain, Brigham and Women’s/Faulkner Neurology, Faulkner Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [15 ]D Husereau, 879 Winnington Ave, Ottawa, ON K2B 5C4, Canada
                [16 ]Clinical Epidemiology Editor, BMJ, London, UK
                Article
                1478-7547-11-6
                10.1186/1478-7547-11-6
                3607888
                23531194
                7bf6548a-7272-425f-a1ab-293ee831c0de
                Copyright ©2013 Husereau et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 5 March 2013
                : 7 March 2013
                Categories
                Guideline

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article