Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.
Journal
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
ISSN: 1471-0528
Titre abrégé: BJOG
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100935741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
entrez:
11
1
2022
pubmed:
12
1
2022
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35014160
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17012
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
336-344Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Pitt C, Goodman C, Hanson K. Economic evaluation in global perspective: a bibliometric analysis of the recent literature. Health Econ 2016;25:9-28.
Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, Saret CJ, Cohen JT. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012. Value Health 2015;18(2):271-7.
Panzer AD, Emerson JG, D’Cruz B, Patel A, Dabak S, Isaranuwatchai W, et al. Growth and capacity for cost-effectiveness analysis in Africa. Health Econ 2020;29(8):945-54.
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 evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 2013;16(2):231-50.
Caulley L, Catalá-López F, Whelan J, Khoury M, Ferraro J, Cheng W, et al. Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;122:87-94.
Emerson J, Panzer A, Cohen JT, Chalkidou K, Teerawattananon Y, Sculpher M, et al. Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies. PLoS One 2019;14(5):e0205633.
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Task force on principles for economic analysis of health care technology. Ann Intern Med 1995;123(1):61-70.
Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 462.
Drummond M, Jefferson T. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313(7052):275.
Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276(16):1339-41.
Nuijten C, Pronk MH, Brorens MJA, Hekster YA, Lockefeer JHM, De Smet PAGM, et al. Reporting format for economic evaluation: Part II: Focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;14(3):259-68.
Vintzileos AM, Beazoglou T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191(4):1070-6.
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(2):165-71.
Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 2015;18(2):161-72.
Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt R, Erickson L, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking-the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8(1):270.
Davis JC, Robertson MC, Comans T, Scuffham PA. Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies. Osteoporos Int 2010;22(9):2449-59.
Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011;342:1756-833.
Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011;11(342):d1766.
Sanghera S, Frew E, Roberts T. Adapting the CHEERS statement for reporting cost-benefit analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2015;33(5):533-4.
Walker DG, Wilson RF, Sharma R, Bridges J, Niessen L, Bass EB, et al. Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools [Internet]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 [cited 2021 Jul 12]. (AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114545/
Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282(11):1054-60.
Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016;316(10):1093-103.
Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada [Internet]. CADTH.ca. 2015 [cited 2021 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/how-we-do-it/methods-and-guidelines/guidelines-for-the-economic-evaluation-of-health-technologies-canada
EUnetHTA JA3WP6B2-5 Authoring Team. Practical considerations when critically assessing economic evaluations. Guidance document. [Internet]. Diemen, The Netherlands: EUnetHTA; 2020 [cited 2021 Jul 12]. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EUnetHTA-JA3WP6B2-5-Guidance-Critical-Assessment-EE_v1-0.pdf
Thorn J, Ridyard C, Hughes D, Wordsworth S, Mihaylova B, Noble S, et al. Health economics analysis plans: where are we now? Value in Health 2016;19(7):A397.
Dunlop WCN, Mason N, Kenworthy J, Akehurst RL. Benefits, challenges and potential strategies of open source health economic models. Pharmacoeconomics 2017;35(1):125-8.
Jansen JP, Incerti D, Linthicum MT. Developing open-source models for the US health system: practical experiences and challenges to date with the open-source value project. Pharmacoeconomics 2019;37(11):1313-20.
Smith R, Schneider P. Making health economic models Shiny: a tutorial. Wellcome Open Res 2020;31(5):69.
ISPOR - Open Source Models [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.ispor.org/member-groups/special-interest-groups/open-source-models
Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Wong JB. A call for open-source cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2017;167(6):432-3.
WHO guide for Standardization of Economic Evaluations of Immunization Programmes [Internet]. Initiative for Vaccine Research (IVR) of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals. 2019 [cited 2021 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.who.int/immunization/documents/who_ivb_19.10/en/
Mauskopf J, Standaert B, Connolly MP, Culyer AJ, Garrison LP, Hutubessy R, et al. Economic analysis of vaccination programs: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report. Value Health 2018;21(10):1133-49.
Wilkinson T, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Revill P, Briggs A, Cairns JA, et al. The International Decision Support Initiative reference case for economic evaluation: an aid to thought. Value Health 2016;19(8):921-8.
Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law 2009;4(Pt 2):231-45.
Cookson R, Griffin S, Norheim OF, Culyer AJ, Chalkidou K. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis comes of age. Value Health 2021;24(1):118-20.
Lorgelly PK. Patient and public involvement in health economics and outcomes research. Patient 2021;14(4):379-80.
Ryan M, Moran PS, Harrington P, Murphy L, O’Neill M, Whelan M, et al. Contribution of stakeholder engagement to the impact of a health technology assessment: an Irish case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2017;33(4):424-9.
Hawton A, Boddy K, Kandiyali R, Tatnell L, Gibson A, Goodwin E. Involving patients in health economics research: “The PACTS Principles”. Patient 2021;14(4):429-34.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2022;25(1).
Malone DC, Ramsey SD, Patrick DL, Johnson FR, Mullins CD, Roberts MS, et al. Criteria and process for initiating and developing an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report. Value in Health 2020;23(4):409-15.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010;7(2):e1000217.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 2017;2:j3453.
Drummond M. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford, UK ; New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 445. (Oxford medical publications).
Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Jaime Caro J, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014;17(1):5-14.
Crown W, Buyukkaramikli N, Thokala P, Morton A, Sir MY, Marshall DA, et al. Constrained optimization methods in health services research-an introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2017;20(3):310-9.
Bond K, Stiffell R, Ollendorf DA. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2020;4:1-8.
ISPOR - Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) II [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Aug 13]. Available from: https://www.ispor.org/member-groups/task-forces/consolidated-health-economic-evaluation-reporting-standards-(cheers)-2
Altman DG, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med 2016;109(2):67-77.
Catalá-López F, Caulley L, Ridao M, Hutton B, Husereau D, Drummond MF, et al. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. BMJ Open 2020;10(2):e034463.
Sperber AD. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology 2004;1(126):S124-8.