scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Value in Health OnlineConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

TL;DR: 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.
About: This article is published in Value in Health.The article was published on 2013-03-01 and is currently open access. It has received 439 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Economic evaluation & Checklist.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Lin-Lu Ma1, Yun-Yun Wang1, Zhi-Hua Yang1, Di Huang1, Hong Weng1, Xian-Tao Zeng 
TL;DR: This review introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial, animal study, non-randomized interventional studies, qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline.
Abstract: Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

625 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Recommendations are provided that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness when possible, should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects, and articles should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses.

530 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: SISs have largely fulfilled their initial objectives without enhancing drug use or drug trafficking, and the implementation of new SISs in places with high rates of injection drug use and associated harms appears to be supported by evidence.

343 citations


Cites methods from "Value in Health OnlineConsolidated ..."

  • ...…t al., 2007), and medical economic studies were evaluated using the “Consolidated ealth Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)” (Husereau et al., 2013). ecause there is currently no consensual assessment method for either qualitative tudies or surveys (Bennett et al.,…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
02 Feb 2017-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis.
Abstract: Background Mobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of costs and consequences of interventions (one categorized as a primary mHealth intervention or mHealth intervention as a component of other interventions), health and economic outcomes and published in English. Full economic evaluations were appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results Searches identified 5902 results, of which 318 were examined at full text, and 39 were included in this review. The 39 studies spanned 19 countries, most of which were conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries (34, 87.2%). Primary mHealth interventions (35, 89.7%), behavior change communication type interventions (e.g., improve attendance rates, medication adherence) (27, 69.2%), and short messaging system (SMS) as the mHealth function (e.g., used to send reminders, information, provide support, conduct surveys or collect data) (22, 56.4%) were most frequent; the most frequent disease or condition focuses were outpatient clinic attendance, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 79.6% (range 47.62–100, STD 14.18) and the top quartile reported 91.3–100%. In 29 studies (74.3%), researchers reported that the mHealth intervention was cost-effective, economically beneficial, or cost saving at base case. Conclusions Findings highlight a growing body of economic evidence for mHealth interventions. Although all studies included a comparison of intervention effectiveness of a health-related outcome and reported economic data, many did not report all recommended economic outcome items and were lacking in comprehensive analysis. The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis. Further research is needed in low and low-middle income countries and to understand the impact of different mHealth types. Following established economic reporting guidelines will improve this body of research.

319 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios, and survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF.
Abstract: Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied chondrocyte implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI.

168 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
03 Aug 1996-BMJ
TL;DR: The BMJ set up a working party on economic evaluation to improve the quality of submitted and published economic articles as discussed by the authors, with the focus on full economic evaluations comparing two or more health care interventions and considering both costs and consequences.
Abstract: Over the past decade interest in the economic evaluation of health care interventions has risen1 Reviews of published studies have, however, shown gaps in the quality of work2 3 4 5 As far back as 1974 Williams listed the essential elements of economic evaluations,6 and more recently Drummond and colleagues set out the methodological areas generally agreed among economists7 Guidelines for economic evaluations have been promulgated and reviewed by many bodies,8 9 10 11 12 13 14 but few medical journals have explicit guidelines for peer review of economic evaluations or consistently use economist reviewers for economic papers even though they are a major publication outlet for economic evaluations15 16 17 In January 1995 the BMJ set up a working party on economic evaluation to improve the quality of submitted and published economic articles It was not our intention to be unduly prescriptive or stifle innovative methods; our emphasis is on improving the clarity of economic evaluations We also did not address those issues of conduct that have been emphasised in other guidelines13 14 15 16 17 18 The working party's objectives were to improve the quality of submitted and published economic evaluations by agreeing acceptable methods and their systematic application before, during, and after peer review Its task was to produce: (a) guidelines for economic evaluation, together with a comprehensive supporting statement which could be easily understood by both specialist and non-specialist readers; (b) a checklist for use by referees and authors; and (c) a checklist for use by editors In producing the guidelines the working party has concentrated on full economic evaluations comparing two or more health care interventions and considering both costs and consequences19 Articles sent to the BMJ and other medical journals are often more broadly based “economic …

1,814 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance and it is hoped that this guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions.

1,563 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
23 Oct 1996-JAMA
TL;DR: Recommendations for the reporting of cost-effective analyses intended to improve the quality and accessibility of CEA reports 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.
Abstract: Objective. —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. Participants. —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. Evidence. —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. Consensus Process. —The panel developed recommendations through 21/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists. Conclusion. —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.

1,176 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.

845 citations

Related Papers (5)