ArticlePharmacoEconomics2015
Adapting the CHEERS Statement for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Guideline
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: Updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.Health policy OPEN · 2022Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2022Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- 'What You See is All There is': The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Review
- Quality Appraisal of the Pharmacoeconomic Research Literature about Antivirals: A Comparison between Chinese Medicine and Non-Chinese Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How?PharmacoEconomics · 2019Review
- Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- A retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study to critically appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25893575What 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.