Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

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 5 years.

[1]  Stavros Petrou,et al.  Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  M. Drummond A Reappraisal of Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals , 1998, PharmacoEconomics.

[3]  Andrea Manca,et al.  Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies , 2005, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[4]  M. Drummond A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing? , 1998, PharmacoEconomics.

[5]  Stavros Petrou,et al.  Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Iveta Simera,et al.  Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  R. Willke,et al.  Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. , 2005, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[8]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[9]  David Moher,et al.  Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane reviewa , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[10]  M. Gold Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[11]  Dan Greenberg,et al.  Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  C. Bell,et al.  The Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 19761997 , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  M C Weinstein,et al.  Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1996, JAMA.

[14]  P. Scuffham,et al.  Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies , 2011, Osteoporosis International.

[15]  A. L. Hillman,et al.  Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology: A Report on Principles , 1995, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  Anthony M Vintzileos,et al.  Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  M J Nuijten,et al.  Reporting format for economic evaluation. Part II: Focus on modelling studies. , 1998, PharmacoEconomics.

[18]  T O Jefferson,et al.  Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ , 1996, BMJ.

[19]  David Moher,et al.  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. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[21]  P. Shekelle,et al.  The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial. , 1999, Medical care.

[22]  L. Erickson,et al.  Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications , 2008, BMC health services research.

[23]  D. Rennie,et al.  Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. , 2000, JAMA.

[24]  Milton C. Weinstein,et al.  Recommendations for Reporting Cost-effectiveness Analyses , 1996 .

[25]  M. Drummond,et al.  Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[26]  Grazyna Adamiak,et al.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed , 2006 .

[27]  Isao Kamae,et al.  The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.