GuidelineBMC medicine2013
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Guideline in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 25 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
102 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The role of digital tools and emerging devices in COVID-19 contact tracing during the first 18 months of the pandemic: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2024Pooled it
- Ignored and undervalued in public health: a systematic review of health state utility values associated with syphilis infection.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of antimicrobial resistance in curable sexually transmitted infections; a systematic review and a case study.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of interventions focusing on child abuse and neglect in high-income countries: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Prenatal and Postpartum Care in Women With Gestational Diabetes and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic Literature Review of the Use of Productivity Losses/Gains in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Immune-Mediated Disorders.Advances in therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life in individuals with genital herpes: a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitors in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Pooled it
- Utility of State-Based Basic Screening Survey Reports for National Oral Health Surveillance in Older Adults.Preventing chronic disease · 2021Pooled it
- Economic Evaluations of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening: A Systematic Review.Journal of epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists.Applied health economics and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Pooled it
- Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- A systematic review of economic evaluations of population-based sodium reduction interventions.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C virus: a systematic review of economic evaluations.BMJ open · 2016Pooled it
42 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
11 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 (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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.