Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-8fhp6 Total loading time: 0.155 Render date: 2021-09-21T11:53:46.131Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2005

Silvia Evers
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Institute for Rehabilitation Research
Mariëlle Goossens
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Institute for Rehabilitation Research
Henrica de Vet
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Centre
Maurits van Tulder
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Centre
André Ament
Affiliation:
Maastricht University

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard.

Methods: The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel.

Results: The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items.

Conclusions: There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.

Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams ME, McCall NT, Gray DT, Orza MJ, Chalmers TC. 1992 Economic analysis in randomized control trials. Med Care. 30: 231243.Google Scholar
Ament AJHA, Evers SMAA, Goossens MEJB, de Vet HCW, van Tulder MW. 2002 Criteria list for conducting systematic reviews based on economic evaluation studies: CHEC. In: Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L, eds. Evidence-based health economics: From effectiveness to efficiency in health care. Chapt 8. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 99113.
Blackmore CC, Magid DJ. 1997 Methodologic evaluation of the radiology cost-effectiveness literature. Radiology. 203: 8791.Google Scholar
Bradley CA, Iskedjian M, Lanctôt KL, et al. 1995 Quality assessment of economic evaluations in selected pharmacy, medical, and health economic journals. Ann Pharmacother. 29: 681689.Google Scholar
Buxton MA. 1997. The Canadian experience: Step change or gradual evolution? London: Office of Health Economics;
Clemens K, Townsend R, Luscombe F, et al. 1995 Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmacoeconomics. 8: 169174.Google Scholar
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics of the McMaster University Health Science Centre. 1984 How to read clinical journals: VII. To understand an economic evaluation (part B). Can Med Assoc J. 130: 15421549.
Detsky AS. 1993 Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. A draft document for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 3: 354361.Google Scholar
Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J. 1993 Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Intl J Technol Assess Health Care. 9: 2636.Google Scholar
Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. 1996 Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. BMJ. 313: 275283.Google Scholar
Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. 1997. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O'Brien BJ, Levine M, Heyland D. 1997 User's guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. JAMA. 277: 15521556.Google Scholar
Eisenberg JM. 1989 Clinical economics. A guide tot economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA. 262: 28792886.Google Scholar
Evers SMAA, van Wijk AS, Ament AJHA. 1994 Economic evaluations of mental health care interventions. A review. Maastricht: Department of Health Economics; 39.
Ganiats TG, Wong AF. 1991 Evaluation of cost-effectiveness research. A survey of recent publications. Fam Med. 23: 457461.Google Scholar
Gerard K. 1992 Cost-utility in practice: A policy maker's guide to the state of the art. Health Policy. 21: 249279.Google Scholar
Gibson GA. 1996 Use of the guidelines to evaluate and interpret pharmacoeconomic literature. Pharmacoeconomics and outcomes. Kansas City, MO: American College of Clinical Pharmacy; 325364.
Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Haycox A, Drummond M, Walley T. 1997 Pharmacoeconomics: Integrating economic evaluation into clinical trials. Br J Pharmacol. 43: 559562.Google Scholar
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. 1996 Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary. Control Clin Trials. 17: 112.Google Scholar
Lee JT, Sanchez LA. 1991 Interpretation of “cost-effective” and soundness of economic evaluations in the pharmacy literature. Am J Hosp Pharm. 48: 26222627.Google Scholar
Mason J, Drummond M. 1995 Reporting guidelines for economic studies. Health Econ. 4: 8594.Google Scholar
Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. 1995 Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 16: 6273.Google Scholar
Sacristán JA. 1993 Soto J, Galende I. Evaluation of pharmacoeconomic studies: Utilization of a checklist. Ann Pharmacother. 27: 11261133.Google Scholar
Sanchez LA. 1995 Evaluating the quality of published pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Hosp Pharm. 30: 146148.Google Scholar
Sanchez LA. 1999 Applied pharmacoeconomics: Evaluation and use of pharmacoeconomic data from the literature. Am J Health-System Pharm. 56: 16301638.Google Scholar
Soto J. 2002 Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modelling: Principles and practices—utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Intl J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 94111.Google Scholar
Task Force on Principles for Economic analysis of health care technology, Economic analysis of health care technology. 1995 A report on principles. Ann Intern Med. 123: 6170.
Udvarhelyi S, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. 1992 Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in the medical literature. Ann Intern Med. 116: 238244.Google Scholar
Verhagen AP, Vet de HCW, de Bie RA, et al. 1998 The Delphi List: A criteria for a list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developments by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 51: 12351241.Google Scholar
419
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *