ArticleBMC health services research2022
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility, Costs and Cost-Utility of Amyloid-PET in the Diagnostic Process of Memory Clinic Patients: A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation From AMYPAD-DPMS.European journal of neurology · 2025Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab combined with tremelimumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable Hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a dual-model approach utilizing partitioned survival and markov models.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Identifying and Comparing Intervention Cost Components in Remote Patient Monitoring: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an acute medical unit model in Singapore: protocol for a pilot prospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness and health impact of gender-neutral and single-dose HPV vaccination in Hong Kong: a modeling analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- The economic impact of clinical pharmacists in a tertiary care centre in Germany: pharmacoeconomic benefit calculation using cost-avoidance analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of the I'm Ready HIV Self-Testing Programme Among High-Risk Populations in Canada.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared to proton pump inhibitors and Nissen fundoplication for management of persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease in Norway.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- A multicenter trial-based economic evaluation of a mobile health intervention for individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Economic impact of extending reflexed cryptococcal antigenaemia CD4 threshold in South Africa.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2024Article
- Using Fetal Fibronectin Test to Reduce Hospital Admissions with Diagnosis of Preterm Labor: An Economic Evaluation Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A critical assessment framework to identify, quantify and interpret the sources of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses.BMC health services research · 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.