ArticleBMC public health2022
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic Evaluation of Clinical, Nutritional and Rehabilitation Interventions on Oropharyngeal Dysphagia after Stroke: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- How much does HIV self-testing cost in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of evidence from economic studies.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Article
- Cost-utility analysis of erenumab preventive treatment for chronic migraine in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A comparative review of economic evaluations for immune checkpoint inhibitors in early stage and advanced stage cancer: focusing on pembrolizumab.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Maxillofacial Fractures in Southern Hungary: A 15-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of 1948 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Economic evaluation of prenatal GBS immunization in China: A modeling analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Health economic evaluation of trans-tibial prosthetic suspension systems: a protocol for a pilot using an observational study and synthetic cohort.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- Medicare Savings for Seizure Drugs by Adopting the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company Model.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Estimated Average Treatment Effect of Psychiatric Hospitalization in Patients With Suicidal Behaviors: A Precision Treatment Analysis.JAMA psychiatry · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 tests in the unified health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty for Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening to the screening of 10 types of chromosomal anomalies: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Economic evaluations of health care interventions in oropharyngeal dysphagia after stroke: protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 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.