Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

Abstract

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 copublished 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.Health economic evaluations are conducted to inform resource allocation decisions. Economic evaluation has been defined as ''the comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both their costs and their consequences.'' [1] All economic evaluations assess costs, but approaches to measuring and valuing the consequences of health interventions may differ (see Box). Economic evaluations have been widely applied in health policy, including the assessment of prevention programmes (such as vaccination, screening, and health promotion), diagnostics, treatment interventions (such as drugs and surgical procedures), organisation of care, and rehabilitation. Economic evaluations are increasingly being used for decision making and are an important component of programmes for health technology assessment internationally [2]. Reporting Challenges and Shortcomings in Health Economic EvaluationsCompared with clinical studies, which report the consequences of an intervention only, economic evaluations require more reporting space for additional items, such as resource use, costs, preference related information, and cost effectiveness results. This creates challenges for editors, reviewers, and those who wish to scrutinise a study's findings [3]. There is evidence that the quality of reporting of economic evaluations varies widely and could potentially benefit from improved quality assurance mechanisms [4,5].Wi...

Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now

“…By clearly presenting all cost components separately alongside methodological assumptions, decision makers will be permitted to assess the impact of different assumptions on the final study results. This has been supported by the recent reporting guideline, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards [8,9].…”

Use of low density lipoprotein particle number levels as an aid in statin treatment decisions for intermediate risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis

“…Future costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 3% as recommended by the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine [23]. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were followed in reporting this economic evaluation [24]. …”

Cost-effectiveness of an exercise intervention program in perimenopausal women: the Fitness League Against MENopause COst (FLAMENCO) randomized controlled trial

“…A cost-utility analysis with a health system perspective will be conducted in line with the methodological recommendations suggested by Lopez-Bastida et al [60], and the guidelines defined in the economic evaluation literature [19, 61]. …”