Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement Research Articles

POSA75 Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations on Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is recommended as gold-standard treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in inoperable patients or who refuse surgery. However, it is unclear if this technique is cost-effective and it is not widely disseminated. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review of full economic evaluations studies that compared SABR with another radiotherapy or surgical technique in the treatment of these patients, in order to review important methodological issues and inform the design of future studies. A systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers. The search was performed in 20 databases and registers (e.g., PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE) The eligible reports were retrieved, and data extracted from each one by using a customized spreadsheet. The reports were also assessed according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement (CHEERS) checklist. The search retrieved 1,190 records. Nine reports were included in the final analysis. Seven of them were model-based analysis, of which five used a Markov model. Most of these used low-quality data at key parameters, as overall survival and recurrence. In the subgroup of the studies that compared only radiotherapy techniques (n=3), all of them favored SABR. In the subgroup of the studies that compared radiotherapy with surgical procedures (n=6), SABR was recommended in comparison to less aggressive techniques, while in comparison to lobectomy SABR was recommended in only one of four studies. According to CHEERS checklist, the proportion of items properly informed varied from 29% to 67%. The included studies support SABR as the recommended radiotherapy technique for early-stage NSCLC, and do not reach a unanimous decision about the use of the technique in comparison with surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the reports lack on methodological information, so it is not feasible to assess the transferability of economic evaluation Results.

Evaluation of quality of pharmacoeconomic studies involved in traditional Chinese medicine in China

ABSTRACT Objectives The pharmacoeconomic studies of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are still in its infancy. Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM to improve the efficiency of health resource allocation and guide the rational use of medicine. Methods Four databases were searched from inception to January 2018. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) were used to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality. STATA 12.0 and Meta analyst 3.13 were used to analyze the related data. Results A total of 178 studies were included. The methodological evaluation of the study found that the total score of QHES was 47.85 ± 8.09. The report quality evaluation results found that many studies did not report comprehensive information, such as lack of detailed reports on abstracts, study perspectives, time frames, discount rates, model selection, but the titles, study background and location, and health results, resource and cost estimates, analysis methods, and heterogeneity analysis are reported in more detail. Six of the ten stratification factors have statistically significant differences. Conclusion The overall quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM is low, and further standardization and improvement are needed to obtain reliable study results.

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation on Targeted Therapies for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Quality Evaluation.

BackgroundEvolving practices in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy inevitably affect health care budgets, especially through the introduction of targeted therapies. This results in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEEs) in this domain. This article reviews the quality of the economic evidence of targeted therapies used in metastatic NSCLC.MethodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and CRD (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) databases to identify topical original articles published between 1/1/2000 and 3/31/2019. A quality of reporting assessment using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement) checklist was converted into a quantitative score and compared with the results of a QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies) evaluation. Components of QHES were also used to analyze the validity of primary outcomes, consideration of heterogeneity and rationality of main assumptions of models in modeling studies.ResultsIn total, 25 HEEs were obtained and analyzed. From the CHEERS assessment, it was found that method description integrity (including setting, perspective, time horizon and discount rate), justification of data sources and a heterogeneity description were often absent or incomplete. Only five examined studies met the accepted standard of good quality. Modeled articles were examined with the QHES instrument, and a lack of illustrated structure, population variability, formula of the transitioning probability and justification for the choice of the model were the most frequently observed problems in the selected studies. After quantification, the CHEERS scores and QHES scores did not differ significantly.ConclusionCurrent NSCLC models generally lack consideration for demographic heterogeneity and transparency of data description, and it would be difficult to transfer or generalize from the scientific literature to real-world evidence-based decision-making. Frameworks of future models should be informed and justified based on the validity of model results and the improvement of modeling accuracy.

Apoyo a las guías de publicación para estudios de evaluación económica por parte de las revistas biomédicas españolas

ObjectiveTo examine the endorsement of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement, by Spanish biomedical journals. MethodCross-sectional analysis of the instructions to authors of Spanish biomedical journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2017. Two authors examined and extracted the following information: mention of any reporting guideline, the CHEERS statement, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Directors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. ResultsOf the 28 journals included, 23 (82.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 63.1-93.9%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline in the instructions to authors. Only one journal mentioned the CHEERS statement for health economic evaluations. Twenty-four journals (85.7%; 95%CI: 67.3-96.0%) mentioned the ICMJE recommendations and 8 (28.6%; 95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) mentioned the EQUATOR network. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for clinical trials was the most- mentioned reporting guideline (n=21; 75.0%; 95%CI: 55.1-89.3%). DiscussionMost of the instructions to authors do not provide guidance on how to report economic evaluations. Journals should support compliance with reporting guidelines by authors and peer-reviewers.

PMH4 - PHARMACOECONOMICS OF ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS INDUCED METABOLIC SYNDROME: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF COST IMPLICATIONS AND HEALTH OUTCOMES

Global risk of atypical antipsychotics (ATPs) induced metabolic syndrome (MS) is high with increasing prescription rates. Metabolic monitoring systems reduces the burden of MS, however, is poorly performed in clinical setting. The objective of this study was to critically assesses the cost implications of ATPs induced MS and metabolic monitoring. Primary studies on cost analysis of ATPs induced MS were assessed based on consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). Inclusion criteria were: cost analysis of ATPs induced MS and cost of metabolic monitoring of ATPs vs. no ATPs/MS, published from 2000-April 2018. Economic models expressed in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were analysed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases and cost-effectiveness analysis registry were searched. Primary outcomes were (i) Reporting standards; (ii) Technical merits and (iii) applicability to local decision making with diverse perspectives. Three studies were included which modelled 16,371 cohorts (including a simulated hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients) from healthcare provider, payer and societal perspectives. One study complied with the CHEERS statement whereas the other two demonstrated partial pharmacoeconomics evaluation. ATPs induced MS incurred significantly higher total care costs compared with those without these conditions (F=710.08; p<0.0001) or those not treated with ATPs (F=2855.54; p<0.0001). Burden of MS was higher among youth. Ziprasidone appeared cost effective as compared to olanzapine and quetiapine in the management of schizophrenia. Ziprasidone also led to marginally higher QALYs when compared with risperidone, however, was costlier (each QALY gained costs an additional $218 060). None of the studies assessed the cost effectiveness of metabolic monitoring systems. ATPs induced MS is associated with significantly higher healthcare services costs. Burden of illness is higher among youth as compared to adults. Risperidone and Ziprasidone appears cost effective with QALY gained. Lack of cost effectiveness studies of metabolic monitoring systems demonstrates technical inefficiency.

PMD90 - A Systematic Review of Economic Outcomes Associated With Use of Topical Interventions for Treatment Of Chronic Wounds

A combination of interventions may be appropriate for a patient with a chronic wound. However, standard care varies by aetiology, geographical location and clinician discipline. A systematic review was undertaken to examine the economic impact of topical interventions for chronic wounds and variance associated with standard care. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches of: Science Direct, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Evidence search, Medline (PubMed), Centre of Reviews and Dissemination (University of York), Cochrane Database and discussion with experts and manufacturers identified the literature. Two researchers performed data extraction, with a third consulted where there were disagreements. Economic endpoints including: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, cost-per Quality Adjusted Life Year and disease related resource use were extracted. A narrative synthesis of results and critical appraisal using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement were performed. 3422 records identified. After screening, 817 full text articles were judged versus inclusion and exclusion criteria. 15 studies were included: 6 economic analysis along clinical trials, and 9 modelling studies.10 studies focused on VLUs, 3 studies on DFUs and 1 on Pressure Ulcers and 1 on Chronic Wounds. Data tables for methods, results and appraisal using the CHEERS statement were completed. Quality scores ranged from 10 – 15 with a mean of 12.9. This review provides some evidence that topical interventions can offer cost-effective solutions for treating chronic wounds compared with standard care. Current evidence predominantly uses the endpoint of wound area reduction; evaluations using complete wound closure as primary endpoint could be more useful. This review informs decision makers and clinicians that more expensive wound care products can be cost-effective in the management of chronic wounds; in opposition to current NICE guidance to use the ‘least costly’ dressing.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Ulcerative Colitis.

BackgroundUlcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic autoimmune inflammation of the colon. The condition significantly decreases quality of life and generates a substantial economic burden for healthcare payers, patients and the society in which they live. Some patients require chronic pharmacotherapy, and access to novel biologic drugs might be crucial for long-term remission. The analyses of cost-effectiveness for biologic drugs are necessary to assess their efficiency and provide the best available drugs to patients.ObjectiveOur aim was to collect and assess the quality of economic analyses carried out for biologic agents used in the treatment of UC, as well as to summarize evidence on the drivers of cost-effectiveness and evaluate the transferability and generalizability of conclusions.MethodsA systematic database review was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and CRD0. Both authors independently reviewed the identified articles to determine their eligibility for final review. Hand searching of references in collected papers was also performed to find any relevant articles. The reporting quality of economic analyses included was evaluated by two reviewers using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement checklist. We reviewed the sensitivity analyses in cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the variables that may have changed the conclusions of the study. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were selected by identifying uncertain parameters that caused the highest change of the results of the analyses compared with base-case results.ResultsOf the 576 identified records, 87 were excluded as duplicates and 16 studies were included in the final review; evaluations for Canada, the UK and Poland were mostly performed. The majority of the evaluations revealed were performed for infliximab (approximately 75% of total volume); however, some assessments were also performed for adalimumab (50%) and golimumab (31%). Only three analyses were conducted for vedolizumab, whereas no relevant studies were found for etrolizumab and tofacitinib. The reporting quality of the included economic analyses was assessed as high, with an average score of 21 points per 24 maximum possible (range 14–23 points according to the ISPOR CHEERS statement checklist). In the case of most analyses, quality-adjusted life-years were used as a clinical outcome, and endpoints such as remission, response and mucosal healing were less common. The higher clinical effectiveness (based on response rates) of biological treatment over non-biological treatments was presented in revealed analyses. The incremental cost-utility ratios for biologics, compared with standard care, varied significantly between the studies and ranged from US$36,309 to US$456,979. The lowest value was obtained for infliximab and the highest for the treatment scheme including infliximab 5 mg/kg and infliximab 10 mg/kg + adalimumab. The change of utility weights and clinical parameters had the most significant influence on the results of the analysis; the variable related to surgery was the least sensitive.ConclusionsLimited data on the cost-effectiveness of UC therapy were identified. In the majority of studies, the lack of cost-effectiveness was revealed for biologics, which was associated with their high costs. Clinical outcomes are transferable to other countries and could be generalized; however, cost inputs are country-specific and therefore limit the transferability and generalizability of conclusions. The key drivers and variables that showed the greatest effect on the analysis results were utility weights and clinical parameters.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-017-0601-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. MS is considered incurable; however, disease treatment has advanced significantly over the past several decades with the introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The current study reviewed the cost-effectiveness analyses of DMTs in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients. A systematic literature search of bibliographic databases was conducted to identify economic evaluations published after 2007. The relevant population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) were considered. The outcomes of interest were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net monetary benefits, incremental benefits, and incremental costs. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the reporting quality of published studies. A total of 1370 potentially relevant citations were identified, of which 33 published articles and four Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports prepared for the UK were included in the final analysis. Almost all studies were based on a health economic model and considered RRMS as the phase of disease at study entry. The studies were conducted in 10 different countries, with approximately 50% based in the US. Study outcomes were rarely comparable due to the different settings, input data, and assumptions. Even within the same country, the discrepancy between study criteria was considerable. The compliance with reporting standards of the CHEERS statement was generally high. Internationally, a large number of health economic assessments of DMTs in RRMS were available, yielding difficult to compare, and at times conflicting, results.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

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 5years.

CONSOLIDATED HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION REPORTING STANDARDS (CHEERS) STATEMENT

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

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 (http://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.

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

BackgroundEconomic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. ObjectiveThe task force’s overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. 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. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. MethodsThe need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. ResultsOut of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study–based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices – CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). ConclusionsWe hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

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 (http://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.