ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2022
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole stones: the PUrE RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conservative management for adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones: the C-GALL RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Labels and Taxes: Simulated Impacts When Considering Implementation.American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a bone metastasis cancer board for skeletal-related events of breast cancer.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Making room for patients in economic evaluation: a commentary on current capacity and future directions.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Type 2 Diabetes and Financial Outcomes.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Early health economic analysis of virtual reality therapy for pain management after surgery.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of segmental adrenal venous sampling with radiofrequency ablation for primary aldosteronism in Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Transarterial radioembolization vs transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads for treating hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Japanese healthcare system.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Vaccinating women previously treated for human papillomavirus-related cervical precancerous lesions is highly cost-effective in China.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Global trends in the health economics field of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: A bibliometric and visualized study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Oral Health Coaches at Well-Baby Clinics to Promote Oral Health in Preschool Children From the First Erupted Tooth: Protocol for a Multisite, Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Using decision analysis to support implementation planning in research and practice.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
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.