ArticleF1000Research2022
Nothing to Cheer About: Endorsing Imaginary Economic Evaluations and Value Claims with CHEERS 22.
Article in F1000Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- After The QALY: Training for a New Start Paradigm in Health Technology Assessment.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- Post-Menopausal Quality of Life Claims: Overlooking the Requirements of Normal Science and Fundamental Measurement in ICER'S Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Fezolinetant for Moderate to Severe Vasomotor Symptoms.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- Rejecting False Claims from Markov Simulations in Alzheimer's Disease.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Hypothetical Gene Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease: A Markov Simulation Analysis.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- Mapping Impossible Utilities: The ICER Report on Tezepelumab for Severe Asthma.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Facilitating bias in cost-effectiveness analysis: CHEERS 2022 and the creation of assumption-driven imaginary value claims in health technology assessment.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Rasch Measurement and Patient Reported Value Claims: A Primer for Hemophilia.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Evidentiary Standards for Patient-Centered Core Impact (PC-CIS) Value Claims.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Formulary Submissions: Value Claims, Protocols and Outcomes Based Contracting in Rare Disease.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Concerns with Patient Reported Outcome Measurement and Value Claims for Therapy Response: The Case of Mavacamten and Symptomatic Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (SHCM).Innovations in pharmacy · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the more unfortunate features of health technology assessment is the tenacity with which leaders in the field and organizations such as the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cling to an evaluation framework that fails to meet the standards of normal science. Believers subscribe to a meme that is clearly non-science (metaphysics and pseudoscience) and one that should have been discarded over 30 years ago. Certainly, subscribing to an impossible belief is not unusual; indeed it may make the belief that much stronger. Yet the meme is non-sustainable; it is also pointless as the economic evaluation claims are non-evaluable. There is no acknowledgement of the standards of normal science or the limitations imposed by the axioms of fundamental measurement. The purpose of this commentary is to make the case that the recent release of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 22) checklist is misleading; CHEERS 22 fails to address the manifest deficiencies in the approach to economic evaluations endorsed by ISPOR and ICER. Instead, it continues to promote economic evaluations in healthcare that invent evidence and non-empirically evaluable value claims. Given the widespread publicity that has accompanied the release of CHEERS 22, the purpose of this commentary is to detail the deficiencies in CHEERS 22 and propose an alternative framework for economic evaluation in health care to meet the information needs of formulary committees. This means abandoning the standards for economic evaluations that have dominated health technology assessment for 30 years, notably the key role assigned to the mathematically impossible quality adjusted life year (QALY). The proposed new start recommends single attribute evaluable value claims that meet ratio or interval measurement standards and are supported by evaluation protocols.
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.