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 the 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, and 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 healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, 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, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 10-31 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | Value in Health |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:“This work was supported by the [National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)] School for Primary Care Research (grant reference 117a). [The author] was funded by NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-02-12-012). A trial steering committee provided independent supervision on behalf of the funder and sponsor (University of Bristol) and an independent data monitoring committee oversaw safety.”
Funding Information:
“All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Thompson reports that he has received funding from Alere Inc to conduct research on C-reactive protein point-of-care tests, has received funding from Roche Molecular Diagnostics for consultancy work.”
Funding Information:
Funding/Support: Funding to support ongoing meetings was provided by ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research . The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or writing of the report. Funding for Mr Husereau and the Delphi Panel exercise was provided by 9363980 Canada Inc. Dr Staniszewska is partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit Gastrointestinal Infections, and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit Genomics and Enabling data.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
