Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

被引:93
作者
Husereau, Don [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Drummond, Michael [4 ]
Petrou, Stavros [5 ]
Carswell, Chris [6 ]
Moher, David [7 ]
Greenberg, Dan [8 ]
Augustovski, Federico [9 ,10 ]
Briggs, Andrew H. [11 ]
Mauskopf, Josephine [12 ]
Loder, Elizabeth
机构
[1] Inst Hlth Econ, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Hlth Sci Med Informat & Technol, Hall In Tirol, Austria
[4] Univ York, Ctr Hlth Econ, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[5] Univ Warwick, Warwick Med Sch, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
[6] Adis Int, PharmacoEconomics, Auckland, New Zealand
[7] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[8] Ben Gurion Univ Negev, Fac Hlth Sci, Dept Hlth Syst Management, Beer Sheva, Israel
[9] Inst Clin Effectiveness & Hlth Policy IECS, Hlth Econ Evaluat & Technol Assessment, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[10] Univ Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[11] Univ Glasgow, Inst Hlth & Wellbeing, Hlth Econ & Hlth Technol Assessment, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
[12] RTI Hlth Solut, Res Triangle Pk, NC USA
关键词
GUIDELINES; QUALITY; TRIALS; DESIGN; RECOMMENDATIONS; CONDUCT;
D O I
10.1007/s40273-013-0032-y
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
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 five years.
引用
收藏
页码:361 / 367
页数:7
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, COST EFFECTIVENESS H, DOI DOI 10.1093/OSO/9780195108248.001.0001
[2]   The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey - Results of a randomized controlled trial [J].
Campbell, SM ;
Hann, M ;
Roland, MO ;
Quayle, JA ;
Shekelle, PG .
MEDICAL CARE, 1999, 37 (09) :964-968
[3]   Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies [J].
Davis, J. C. ;
Robertson, M. C. ;
Comans, T. ;
Scuffham, P. A. .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 22 (09) :2449-2459
[4]   Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies [J].
Drummond, M ;
Manca, A ;
Sculpher, M .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2005, 21 (02) :165-171
[5]   Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ [J].
Drummond, MF ;
Jefferson, TO .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 313 (7052) :275-283
[6]   A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals - Science or marketing? [J].
Drummond, MF .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1998, 14 (01) :1-9
[7]  
Drummond MF, 2005, METHODS EC EVALUATIO, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00069-X
[8]   Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions [J].
Drummond, Michael F. ;
Schwartz, J. Sanford ;
Jonsson, Bengt ;
Luce, Bryan R. ;
Neumann, Peter J. ;
Siebert, Uwe ;
Sullivan, Sean D. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 24 (03) :244-258
[9]   Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking - The EVIDEM framework and potential applications [J].
Goetghebeur M.M. ;
Wagner M. ;
Khoury H. ;
Levitt R.J. ;
Erickson L.J. ;
Rindress D. .
BMC Health Services Research, 8 (1)
[10]  
HILLMAN AL, 1995, ANN INTERN MED, V123, P61