Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T08:48:57.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2022

Don Husereau*
Affiliation:
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Michael Drummond
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
Federico Augustovski
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Esther de Bekker-Grob
Affiliation:
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Andrew H. Briggs
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Chris Carswell
Affiliation:
Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
Lisa Caulley
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Dan Greenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
Elizabeth Loder
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA The BMJ, London, UK
Josephine Mauskopf
Affiliation:
RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, Research Triangle, NC, USA
C. Daniel Mullins
Affiliation:
School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
Stavros Petrou
Affiliation:
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Raoh-Fang Pwu
Affiliation:
National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
Sophie Staniszewska
Affiliation:
Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Don Husereau, E-mail: donh@donhusereau.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
CHEERS 2022 Statement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Economic evaluations of health interventions are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. They can provide useful information to policy makers, payers, health professionals, patients, and the public about choices that affect health and the use of resources. Economic evaluations are a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published economic evaluations (Reference Pitt, Goodman and Hanson1Reference Panzer, Emerson, D'Cruz, Patel, Dabak and Isaranuwatchai3) and availability of reporting guidance (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Petrou, Carswell, Moher and Greenberg4), there is a considerable lack of standardization and transparency in reporting (Reference Caulley, Catalá-López, Whelan, Khoury, Ferraro and Cheng5;Reference Emerson, Panzer, Cohen, Chalkidou, Teerawattananon and Sculpher6). There remains a need for reporting guidance to help authors, journal editors, and peer reviewers in their identification and interpretation.

The goal of the original Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Petrou, Carswell, Moher and Greenberg4) was to recommend the minimum amount of information required for reporting published health economic evaluations. The statement consisted of a 24-item checklist and Explanation and Elaboration Report (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Petrou, Carswell, Moher and Greenberg4). CHEERS was intended to help authors provide accurate information on which health interventions are being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings are, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. In doing so, it can also aid interested researchers in replicating research findings. Some checklist items (such as title, abstract) were also included to aid those researching economic evaluation literature. The CHEERS statement consolidated previous health economic evaluation reporting guidelines (7Reference Petrou and Gray18) into one current, useful reporting guidance.

Since the original publication of the CHEERS statement, there have been several developments that have motivated an update. These include feedback on perceived limitations of CHEERS, including criticism of its neglect of addressing reporting of cost–benefit analyses (Reference Sanghera, Frew and Roberts19). CHEERS has also been observed to be used inappropriately, as a tool to assess the quality of methods, for which other tools exist (Reference Walker, Wilson, Sharma, Bridges, Niessen and Bass20), rather than the quality of reporting (Reference Caulley, Catalá-López, Whelan, Khoury, Ferraro and Cheng5). It has also been used as a tool to quantitatively score studies in systematic reviews, an approach that could mislead readers and reviewers (Reference Jüni, Witschi, Bloch and Egger21) as it has not been designed for this purpose.

There have also been methods developments in economic evaluation motivating an update. This includes an update of methods proposed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (“Second Panel”), which contained new recommendations concerning the perspective of economic evaluations, the classification of costs and benefits in a structured table, and the inclusion of related and unrelated healthcare costs in added years of life (Reference Sanders, Neumann, Basu, Brock, Feeny and Krahn22). Health technology assessment bodies have also updated their guidance on conducting and appraising economic evaluations (23;24).

There have also been increasing calls for the use of health economic analysis plans (Reference Thorn, Ridyard, Hughes, Wordsworth, Mihaylova and Noble25) and the use of open-source models (Reference Dunlop, Mason, Kenworthy and Akehurst26Reference Cohen, Neumann and Wong30). The latter may be of particular importance as published economic evaluations are increasingly available in journals with broad data-sharing policies. Increased use of, and guidance for, economic evaluations to support policy decisions in immunization programmes (31;Reference Mauskopf, Standaert, Connolly, Culyer, Garrison and Hutubessy32) and global health in lower and middle-income countries (Reference Wilkinson, Sculpher, Claxton, Revill, Briggs and Cairns33) have also motivated an update. There has also been an increase in the number of economic evaluations that attempt to capture consequences extending beyond health outcomes, such as equity and distributional effects (Reference Cookson, Drummond and Weatherly34;Reference Cookson, Griffin, Norheim, Culyer and Chalkidou35).

Finally, the increased role of stakeholder involvement in health research and health technology assessment, including patients and the public, suggests the need for reporting guidance to recognize a broader audience (Reference Lorgelly36Reference Hawton, Boddy, Kandiyali, Tatnell, Gibson and Goodwin38). All of these developments suggest the scope of guidance for reporting economic evaluations should be expanded and updated.

The objective of this article is to provide a brief overview of the CHEERS 2022 statement, which consists of a 28-item checklist, and an Explanation and Elaboration report with accompanying user tools and guidance. More detailed guidance and illustrative examples on how to use the checklist can be found in the larger Explanation and Elaboration report (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Augustovski, de Bekker-Grob, Briggs and Carswell39).

Summary points

  • To ensure health economic evaluations are interpretable and useful for decision making, authors need to provide sufficient detail about the healthcare context and decision under investigation, analytic approach, and findings, and the potential impact on patients, service recipients, and public or application in policy or patient care.

  • This article provides a brief overview of the CHEERS 2022 statement, which provides updated reporting guidance that reflects the need for a broader application to all types of health economic evaluation and health interventions, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of participation from patients, service recipients, and other key stakeholders.

  • The CHEERS 2022 statement consists of a 28-item checklist and an Explanation and Elaboration report with accompanying user tools and guidance.

  • The CHEERS 2022 statement is intended to be used for any form of health economic evaluation and is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. The statement is not intended as a scoring tool or a tool to assess the appropriateness of methods.

  • Budget impact analyses and constrained optimization studies are beyond the scope of the guidance.

  • We anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies and useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Approach

The process of revising CHEERS followed that of ISPOR Good Practices Task Force reports (Reference Malone, Ramsey, Patrick, Johnson, Mullins and Roberts40) as well as guidance developed by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network (Reference Moher, Schulz, Simera and Altman41), where the CHEERS 2022 update is also registered. An informal review was undertaken of reporting guidelines published since CHEERS, and new items were proposed and consolidated along with the existing CHEERS Checklist. In parallel with this, a task force was convened and a group of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) contributors was formed to review the consolidated checklist and provide suggestions on language and the need for additional items. The draft checklist was finalized by CHEERS Task Force members.

Experts in economic evaluation, as well as those with perspectives in journal editing, decision making, health technology assessment, and commercial life sciences, were invited to participate in a modified Delphi Panel (“Delphi”) process. Further details on how the Task Force and PPIE members were chosen are available in the Explanation and Elaboration document (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Augustovski, de Bekker-Grob, Briggs and Carswell39). Panelists along with the PPIE contributors were subsequently invited to participate by email and directed to a web-based survey. Feedback from each round of the Delphi process was discussed by Task Force members, who ultimately finalized the checklist based on the input provided. A guiding principle for CHEERS is that economic evaluations made available publicly should be understandable, interpretable, and replicable to those who use them.

A completed Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public-Version 2 (GRIPP2) (Reference Staniszewska, Brett, Simera, Seers, Mockford and Goodlad42) checklist is in Appendix A. The protocol for the Delphi process, as well as panel composition, size, response rates, and analytic approach can be found in Appendix B.

The CHEERS 2022 Statement

Scope

The CHEERS 2022 statement is intended to be used for any form of health economic evaluation (Reference Drummond43). This includes analyses that only examine costs and cost offsets (that is, cost analysis) or those that examine both costs and consequences. The latter include analyses that consider health consequences [such as, cost-effectiveness/utility analyses (CEAs/CUAs), cost minimization, cost–benefit/benefit–cost analyses (CBAs)], and broader measures of benefit and harm to individuals (such as extended CEAs/CBAs), including measures of equity (such as distributional CEAs). While we are aware some studies comparing costs are labeled as CBAs, we recommend the use of this term for studies, which include a monetary valuation of health outcomes. Although linked to economic evaluation, budget impact analyses and constrained optimization studies are beyond the scope of CHEERS guidance, as they require additional reporting that addresses population dynamics and feasibility constraints and are addressed in other guidance reports (Reference Sullivan, Mauskopf, Augustovski, Jaime Caro, Lee and Minchin44;Reference Crown, Buyukkaramikli, Thokala, Morton, Sir and Marshall45).

The primary audiences for the CHEERS 2022 statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations as well as peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. While the statement is not intended to guide the conduct of economic evaluation, familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. CHEERS may be similarly useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making (Reference Bond, Stiffell and Ollendorf46). Health technology assessment and the use of economic evaluation are also becoming more commonplace globally (Reference Panzer, Emerson, D'Cruz, Patel, Dabak and Isaranuwatchai3). In developing the guidelines, the CHEERS Task Force considered issues that may be specific to regions with developing economies and healthcare systems, including providing examples of these by item in the larger report (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Augustovski, de Bekker-Grob, Briggs and Carswell39), to ensure the reporting guidance will be useful in any social or political context.

CHEERS is relevant for any intervention intended to affect health and should also be widely applicable for both simple and complex interventions, including programmes of care involving researcher-driven or commercialized products (such as drugs, macromolecules, cell, gene, and tissue-based therapies, vaccines, and medical devices); public health and social care interventions; processes of care (such as e-health, care coordination, clinical decision rules, clinical pathways, information and communication, medical and allied health services); and re-organization of care (such as insurance redesign, alternative financing approaches, integrated care, scope of practice change, and workplace interventions).

CHEERS is also applicable to studies based on mathematical modeling or empirical research (such as patient-level or cluster-level human studies). Although CHEERS can be used for systematic reviews of economic evaluation, its use should be limited to assessing the quality of reporting of a study rather than the quality of its conduct. As there is no validated scoring system for the checklist, using it as a scoring tool could lead to misleading findings and is strongly discouraged (Reference Jüni, Witschi, Bloch and Egger21). If used to assess the quality of reporting in a systematic review, a qualitative assessment of completeness of reporting by item is a more appropriate approach. When applying the CHEERS statement, users may need to refer to additional reporting guidance (for example, for randomized controlled trials, patient and public involvement, modeling, health state preference measures), and these are referenced throughout the Explanation and Elaboration report (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Augustovski, de Bekker-Grob, Briggs and Carswell39).

How to Use CHEERS

The CHEERS 2022 statement (checklist and Explanation and Elaboration report) replaces the 2013 CHEERS statement, which should no longer be used. The new CHEERS checklist contains 28 items with accompanying descriptions (Table 1). Major changes from CHEERS 2013 are described in Box 1. Checklist items are subdivided into seven main categories: (1) Title; (2) Abstract; (3) Introduction; (4) Methods; (5) Results; (6) Discussion; and (7) Other relevant information. Users of the checklist should first consult the Explanation and Elaboration report (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Augustovski, de Bekker-Grob, Briggs and Carswell39) to ensure the appropriate interpretation of each item description.

Table 1. The CHEERS 2022 checklist

Box 1. Major changes in the CHEERS 2022 statement (compared with CHEERS 2013)

  • Items related to patients or service recipients, the general public, and community or stakeholder involvement and engagement added.

  • Language broadened to make CHEERS more widely applicable to cost–benefit/benefit–cost analysis, as well as equity or distributional cost-effectiveness.

  • Item related to reporting and availability of a health economic analysis plan added.

  • Item related to characterizing distributional effects added.

  • Items distinguishing between model-based and study-based measures removed.

  • Recommendation to report where publicly available models can be found added. Sharing of unlocked models with editors and reviewers encouraged.

Those using the checklist should indicate the section of the manuscript where relevant information can be found. If an item does not apply to a particular economic evaluation (for example, items 11–13 for cost analyses, or items 16 and 22 for non-modeling studies), checklist users are encouraged to report “Not applicable.” If information is otherwise not reported, checklist users are encouraged to write “Not reported.” Users should avoid the term “Not conducted” as CHEERS is intended to guide and capture reporting.

As before, in developing the CHEERS Statement, the Task Force recognizes that the amount of information required for adequate reporting will exceed conventional space limits of most journal reports. Therefore, in making our recommendations, we assume that authors and journals will make the necessary information available to readers using online and Supplementary appendices or other means.

In addition to the open-access Explanation and Elaboration report (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Augustovski, de Bekker-Grob, Briggs and Carswell39), we have also made available templates, an interactive form (https://don-husereau.shinyapps.io/CHEERS/), and further educational materials for authors, to facilitate the appropriate use of the guidance. We encourage authors to visit the CHEERS (47) and EQUATOR (Reference Altman and Simera48) websites to locate copies of the checklist, the Explanation and Elaboration report (Reference Husereau, Drummond, Augustovski, de Bekker-Grob, Briggs and Carswell39), links to educational resources, templates, translations, a link to the interactive form, and future updates.

Discussion

We hope this update of the CHEERS statement will be useful to those who need to identify, prepare, and interpret reports of health economic evaluations. Despite the promotion and increased number of available health economic evaluations, as well as the availability of CHEERS in multiple languages since 2013, there is some indication CHEERS could be more widely and appropriately used. A convenience sample of 50 articles citing CHEERS revealed only 42 percent (95 percent confidence interval 28–56 percent) made an appropriate use of CHEERS (Reference Caulley, Catalá-López, Whelan, Khoury, Ferraro and Cheng5). This is a similar rate to those observed with other major reporting guidelines (CONSORT, PRISMA, ARRIVE). The same study also found that the inappropriate use of CHEERS has increased from its time of publication.

In creating this update, we also wanted to ensure the broadest possible application of CHEERS. Previous concerns raised about its lack of applicability in cost–benefit analyses (CBAs) were understandable, given original CHEERS guidance leaning strongly towards proving direction for those conducting cost-effectiveness analyses (including cost-utility analyses). This was driven, in part, by the small prevalence and impact of published CBAs at the time of the original CHEERS guidance. However, it is clear that broader characterizations of the benefits of healthcare, in concert with the promotion and publication of other forms of economic evaluation, such as distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, are becoming increasingly important. Health economic evaluation is also finding increasing application across a wider spectrum of health interventions. We hope the revised CHEERS statement addresses these concerns.

We are also aware that the final checklist reflects the perspectives of the Task Force members, PPIE advisors, Delphi Panel members, and peer reviewers involved. While nominal group techniques such as the Delphi approach are intended to minimize the excessive influence of dominant experts in a group, we acknowledge that the output of these processes is only as good as the experience and perspectives represented. While a diversity of expertise was sought, it is possible that more could be said for specific applications of CHEERS for interventions that have impacts beyond health (for example, educational, environmental, social care). We would encourage those who see opportunities to expand CHEERS 2022 items or to create additional reporting guidance that provides clarification in specific areas, to work with members of the CHEERS Task Force to develop CHEERS extensions in these areas.

The updated guidance also anticipates future developments in the conduct and reporting of published health economic evaluations. These include the use of health economic analysis plans, model sharing, and the increasing involvement of stakeholders in health research, including engagement with communities, patients, and the public. While some on the Delphi Panel suggested that these developments did not warrant their own reporting items, the Task Force ultimately felt addressing these developments through the creation of separate items could foster awareness of their use and development.

As there is an increasing need for clarity of the information to support healthcare decision making and attention to healthcare expenditure, we anticipate the role of published health economic evaluation to become more important. While we hope the CHEERS 2022 statement and accompanying resources will ultimately improve the quality of reporting (and decision making), the impact of the original CHEERS statement on reporting quality is still uncertain. A formal evaluation study is ongoing, and results will be available in 2022 (Reference Catalá-López, Caulley, Ridao, Hutton, Husereau and Drummond49). In the meantime, we have focused our attention on strategies to increase the appropriate use of CHEERS, including creating a wider range of tools and resources for editors and authors, seeking endorsement across a larger group of journals, and increasing outreach efforts.

We also recognize that researchers may wish to translate CHEERS 2022 into other languages. In these cases, we would encourage appropriate methods (Reference Moher, Schulz, Simera and Altman41;Reference Sperber50) and collaboration with Task Force members to ensure consistency with CHEERS. We encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to regularly consult the CHEERS 2022 webpage and to provide feedback on how it can be improved.

Conclusion

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.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462321001732.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following who participated in the study.

The Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) Advisory Group: Ivett Jakab, Emma Kinloch, Eric Low, Jean Mossman, Declan Noone, Phil Posner, and Jo Watson.

The Editors Advisory Group: Wendy Babidge, Lyn Beamesderfer, Dior Beerens, Chris Carswell, Tillie Cryer, Ana Donnelly, Manuel Espinoza, Dan Greenberg, Wolfgang Greiner, Laura Happe, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Christine Laine, Lin Lee, Ken Lee, Elizabeth Loder, Natalie Pafitis, Julia Robinson Kenneth Stein, Eva Szunyogova, Wim Weber, Timothy Wrightson, and Brian Zikmund-Fisher.

Participants in the Delphi Panel exercise: Marie-Claude Aubin, Marc Berger, John Campbell, Doug Coyle, Matthew Dyer Richard Edlin, Rita Faria, Veronica Gallegos, Alastair Gray, Scott Grosse, Jason Guertin, Dyfrig Hughes, Florencia Hutter, Denny John, Hanin Farhana Kamaruzaman, David Kim, Murray Krahn, Dan Moldaver, Ku Abd Rahim Ku Nurhasni, Daniela Vianna Pachito, Michael Paulden, Clinton Pecenka, Andrés Pichon-Riviere, John Powell, Lisa Prosser, Dean Regier, Anna Ringborg, Rossana Rivas, Chris Sampson, Marisa Santos, Paul Scuffham, Mark Sculpher, Katia Senna, Eldon Spackman, Lotte Steuten, David Tamblyn, Kilgore Trout, Dick Willke, and Torbjorn Wisloff.

Additional ISPOR reviewers who commented on our drafts: Tadesse Abegaz, Alex Kostyuk, Kelly Lenahan, Nan Luo, Joshua Soboil, Richard White, and members of the PPIE.

Thanks to David Moher for initial advice on approach, and a very special final thanks to Elizabeth Molsen.

Author Contributions

DH is Task Force co-chair and the submitting and corresponding author; MD is a Task Force co-chair. All other authors (FA, EBG, AHB, CC, LC, NC, DG, EL, JM, CDM, SP, RFP, and SS listed in alphabetical order by surname) and the co-chairs conceived this paper and designed the Delphi survey conducted to inform the guideline content. DH conducted a literature review, administered the Delphi survey and analysed the data for both. DH and MD prepared materials for each meeting and led the drafting and editing of the article. DH, MD, FA, AHB, EBG, CC, LC, NC, DG, EL, JM, CDM, SP, RFP, and SS drafted particular sections of the article. MD and SS led the PPIE advisory group. DH and CC led the Editors Advisory Group. All authors were involved in revising the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the article. DH is the guarantor of this work. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

David Moher served as scientific advisor and reviewed the initial proposal as well as attended initial meetings; all members of the PPIE (Ivett Jakab, Emma Kinloch, Eric Low, Jean Mossman, Declan Noone, Phil Posner, and Jo Watson) critically reviewed the initial checklist and suggested and provided review and advice on subsequent drafts of the checklist and Explanation and Elaboration report. Members of the PPIE were invited to participate in the Delphi Panel exercise. All members of the PPIE and Delphi Panel were invited to review drafts of the checklist and accompanying report.

Funding

Funding to support ongoing meetings was provided by ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or writing of the report. Funding for DH and the Delphi Panel exercise was provided by 9363980 Canada Inc. SS is partly funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands, the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) Gastrointestinal Infections, and the NIHR HPRU Genomics and Enabling data.

Competing Interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare no competing interests. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Footnotes

*

This article is a joint publication by Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, BJOG, BMC Health Services Research, BMC Medicine, BMC Public Health, BMJ, Clinical Therapeutics, Health Policy Open, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, Journal of Medical Economics, MDM Policy & Practice, Pharmacoeconomics, The European Journal of Health Economics, Value in Health, and Value in Health Regional (en español). Each publisher holds its own copyright or has licensed the content for use, with the authors retaining copyright. The BMJ managed the peer review process for this article on behalf of all journals.

References

Pitt, C, Goodman, C, Hanson, K. Economic evaluation in global perspective: A bibliometric analysis of the recent literature. Health Econ. 2016;25:928. doi:10.1002/hec.3305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, PJ, Thorat, T, Shi, J, Saret, CJ, Cohen, JT. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012. Value Health. 2015;18:271–7. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;29:945–54. doi:10.1002/hec.4029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, Carswell, C, Moher, D, Greenberg, D, et al. ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines-CHEERS good reporting practices task force. 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;16:231–50. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;122:8794. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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:e0205633, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:6170. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-123-1-199507010-00011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google ScholarPubMed
Drummond, MF, Jefferson, TO. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313:275–83. doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, JE, Weinstein, MC, Russell, LB, Gold, MR. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996;276:1339–41. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160061034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;14:259–68. doi:10.2165/00019053-199814030-00003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vintzileos, AM, Beazoglou, T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:1070–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;21:165–71. doi:10.1017/S0266462305050221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;18:161–72. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goetghebeur, MM, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, Levitt, RJ, Erickson, LJ, Rindress, D. Evidence and value: Impact on DEcisionmaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270, doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, JC, Robertson, MC, Comans, T, Scuffham, PA. Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2449–59. doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1482-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrou, S, Gray, A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: Design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1548, doi:10.1136/bmj.d1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrou, S, Gray, A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: Design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1766, doi:10.1136/bmj.d1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanghera, S, Frew, E, Roberts, T. Adapting the CHEERS Statement for reporting cost-benefit analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:533–4. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0265-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2012. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114545/Google ScholarPubMed
Jüni, P, Witschi, A, Bloch, R, Egger, M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054–60. doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;316:1093–103. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CADTH.ca. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Canada: CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health); 2015. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/how-we-do-it/methods-and-guidelines/guidelines-for-the-economic-evaluation-of-health-technologies-canada.Google Scholar
EUnetHTA European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Practical considerations when critically assessing economic evaluations. Guidance document; 2021. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EUnetHTA-JA3WP6B2-5-Guidance-Critical-Assessment-EE_v1-0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Thorn, J, Ridyard, C, Hughes, D, Wordsworth, S, Mihaylova, B, Noble, S, et al. Health economics analysis plans: Where are we now? Value Health. 2016;19:A397, doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlop, WCN, Mason, N, Kenworthy, J, Akehurst, RL. Benefits, challenges and potential strategies of open source health economic models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:125–8. doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0479-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;37:1313–20. doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00827-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R, Schneider, P. Making health economic models shiny: A tutorial. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:69, doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15807.2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, JT, Neumann, PJ, Wong, JB. A call for open-source cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:432–3. doi:10.7326/M17-1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHO. WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-IVB-19.10.Google Scholar
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;21:1133–49. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;19:921–8. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cookson, R, Drummond, M, Weatherly, H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4:231–45. doi:10.1017/S1744133109004903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cookson, R, Griffin, S, Norheim, OF, Culyer, AJ, Chalkidou, K. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis comes of age. Value Health. 2021;24:118–20. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorgelly, PK. Patient and public involvement in health economics and outcomes research. Patient. 2021;14:379–80. doi:10.1007/s40271-021-00505-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;33:424–9. doi:10.1017/S026646231700085X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawton, A, Boddy, K, Kandiyali, R, Tatnell, L, Gibson, A, Goodwin, E. Involving patients in health economics research: “the PACTS principles”. Patient. 2021;14:429–34. doi:10.1007/s40271-020-00461-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008.Google Scholar
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 Health. 2020;23:409–15. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Schulz, KF, Simera, I, Altman, DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;358:j3453, doi:10.1136/bmj.j3453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
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;17:514. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;20:310–9. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.01.013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, K, Stiffell, R, Ollendorf, DA. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020: 18. doi:10.1017/S0266462320000550.Google ScholarPubMed
ISPOR. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Available from: https://www.ispor.org/CHEERS.Google Scholar
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;109:6777. doi:10.1177/0141076815625599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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:e034463, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, AD. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:S124–8. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. The CHEERS 2022 checklist

Supplementary material: File

Husereau et al. supplementary material

Husereau et al. supplementary material

Download Husereau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 87.2 KB