Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35036563›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Don Husereau, Michael Drummond, Federico Augustovski, Esther de Bekker-Grob, Andrew H Briggs, Chris Carswell, Lisa Caulley, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Dan Greenberg, Elizabeth Loder and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

108 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Assessing Value for Money in Theranostic Nuclear Medicine: A Systematic Review.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Cost-Effectiveness of a Personalised Self-Management Intervention for People Living With Long Covid: The LISTEN Randomised Controlled Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. A cost-effectiveness analysis of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Don HusereauSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Michael DrummondSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Federico AugustovskiSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Esther de Bekker-GrobSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Andrew H BriggsSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Chris CarswellSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Lisa CaulleySchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Nathorn ChaiyakunaprukSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Dan GreenbergSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Elizabeth LoderSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Josephine MauskopfSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
C Daniel MullinsSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Stavros PetrouSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Raoh-Fang PwuSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
Sophie StaniszewskaSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Identifiers

PMID35036563
PMCPMC8755935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.