ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2013
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
101 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Software with artificial intelligence-derived algorithms for detecting and analysing lung nodules in CT scans: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Hybrid closed-loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic modelling.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Short-term economic evaluation of physical activity-based corporate health programs: a systematic review.Journal of occupational health · 2024Pooled it
- [Cost-Effectiveness of Case and Care Management in Older Populations in Germany: a Systematic Literature Review].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023Pooled it
- The Cost of Flexible Bronchoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review on the economic burden of interstitial lung disease and the cost-effectiveness of current therapies.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers in Germany: Description, Economic Evaluation, and Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Health policy and planning · 2021Pooled it
- Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Direct Medical Costs, Productivity Loss Costs and Out-Of-Pocket Expenditures in Women with Breast Cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Economic Models Across the Entire Schizophrenia Pathway.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Evidence on result-based financing in maternal and child health in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Global health research and policy · 2020Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the cost-effectiveness of earlyBJS open · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for perinatal anxiety and/or depression: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Where's the evidence? a systematic review of economic analyses of residential aged care infrastructure.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23526140What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.