CHEERS（Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards）2022 詳細と解説 ISPOR（国際医薬経済・アウトカム研究学会）CHEERS II Good Practices タスクフォース報告書
医療経済評価は，費用と結果の点から，代替案との比較分析を行うものである．2013年に公表されたCHEERS（The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards）は，医療経済評価の特定や解釈が可能で，意思決定に有用であることを保証するために作成された．CHEERSはガイダンスとして，どの健康介入を比較したか，どのような状況で，どのように評価を行い，どのような結果が得られたか，あるいは読者や査読者たちがその研究を解釈し，利用するのに有用かもしれない詳細な事項について，著者が正確に報告するために役立つことを目的としていた．新...
Saved in:
| Published in | 保健医療科学 Vol. 72; no. 4; pp. 344 - 369 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | Japanese |
| Published |
国立保健医療科学院
31.10.2023
|
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 1347-6459 2432-0722 |
| DOI | 10.20683/jniph.72.4_344 |
Cover
| Abstract | 医療経済評価は，費用と結果の点から，代替案との比較分析を行うものである．2013年に公表されたCHEERS（The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards）は，医療経済評価の特定や解釈が可能で，意思決定に有用であることを保証するために作成された．CHEERSはガイダンスとして，どの健康介入を比較したか，どのような状況で，どのように評価を行い，どのような結果が得られたか，あるいは読者や査読者たちがその研究を解釈し，利用するのに有用かもしれない詳細な事項について，著者が正確に報告するために役立つことを目的としていた．新しいCHEERS 2022は，以前のCHEERS報告ガイダンスを置き換えるものである．これは，あらゆる種類の医療経済評価，この分野における新しい方法や発展，患者や一般市民などステークホルダーの役割増加に容易に対応できるガイダンスの必要性を反映したものである．また，個人の健康か集団の健康か，単純であるか複雑であるかを問わず，コンテクスト（医療，公衆衛生，教育，社会的ケアなど）によることなく，あらゆる形式の介入に幅広く適応可能である．この報告書には推奨と解説のついた28項目からなるCHEERS2022チェックリストと各項目の具体例が示されている．CHEERS 2022は主に，査読誌に経済評価を報告する研究者とそれらを評価する査読者や編集者を対象としている．しかし，研究を計画する際には，報告要件を熟知していることが分析者にとって有用であると考えられる．また，意思決定において透明性がますます重視されるようになっており，報告に関するガイダンスを求める医療技術評価機関にとっても有用な可能性がある． |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 医療経済評価は，費用と結果の点から，代替案との比較分析を行うものである．2013年に公表されたCHEERS（The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards）は，医療経済評価の特定や解釈が可能で，意思決定に有用であることを保証するために作成された．CHEERSはガイダンスとして，どの健康介入を比較したか，どのような状況で，どのように評価を行い，どのような結果が得られたか，あるいは読者や査読者たちがその研究を解釈し，利用するのに有用かもしれない詳細な事項について，著者が正確に報告するために役立つことを目的としていた．新しいCHEERS 2022は，以前のCHEERS報告ガイダンスを置き換えるものである．これは，あらゆる種類の医療経済評価，この分野における新しい方法や発展，患者や一般市民などステークホルダーの役割増加に容易に対応できるガイダンスの必要性を反映したものである．また，個人の健康か集団の健康か，単純であるか複雑であるかを問わず，コンテクスト（医療，公衆衛生，教育，社会的ケアなど）によることなく，あらゆる形式の介入に幅広く適応可能である．この報告書には推奨と解説のついた28項目からなるCHEERS2022チェックリストと各項目の具体例が示されている．CHEERS 2022は主に，査読誌に経済評価を報告する研究者とそれらを評価する査読者や編集者を対象としている．しかし，研究を計画する際には，報告要件を熟知していることが分析者にとって有用であると考えられる．また，意思決定において透明性がますます重視されるようになっており，報告に関するガイダンスを求める医療技術評価機関にとっても有用な可能性がある． |
| Author | 白岩, 健 能登, 真一 福田, 敬 小林, 慎 |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 fullname: 小林, 慎 organization: 株式会社クレコンメディアカルアセスメント – sequence: 1 fullname: 福田, 敬 organization: 国立保健医療科学院保健医療経済評価研究センター – sequence: 1 fullname: 白岩, 健 organization: 国立保健医療科学院保健医療経済評価研究センター – sequence: 1 fullname: 能登, 真一 organization: 新潟医療福祉大学リハビリテーション学部 |
| BookMark | eNo9kM1Kw0AUhQepYK2u3eYFUmfu3DSTlUiIVigIra5cDLfJpE1IJyWJgkt3-hwu_MGFoMu-jQu76ytYf3BzzuLAx-HbZi1bWsPYnuBd4D0l93ObzaddH7qoJeIGawNKcLkP0GJtIdF3e-gFW2y3rrMx54KDQFBtdhH2o2g4Wi1uw9LWZZEl1JjE6RsqmqkTxaUtZ1nsRFdUXFKTldYZmnlZNZmdOKOGbEJVUq8Wd8ABnOXT2-f768fN4_Lhfvn8ssM2Uypqs_vXHXZ-FJ2FfXdwenwSHg7cXAhJLlIaS6MQEuLgC5AeqhgVQQwKlcdTYZQfGAIENHLMsSd9JShIVICpRyA77OCXm9cNTYyeV9mMqmtN65txYfSPG-2Dxu9Y6_lf4ilVOif5BaOeaag |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2023 国立保健医療科学院 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2023 国立保健医療科学院 |
| DOI | 10.20683/jniph.72.4_344 |
| DatabaseTitleList | |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Public Health |
| EISSN | 2432-0722 |
| EndPage | 369 |
| ExternalDocumentID | article_jniph_72_4_72_344_article_char_ja |
| GroupedDBID | ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS JSF OK1 RJT |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-j113a-4afc3e842da027123548c48a2c284850f1e879ea2424e3b0463781a9d894f5a23 |
| ISSN | 1347-6459 |
| IngestDate | Wed Sep 03 06:31:05 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | false |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 4 |
| Language | Japanese |
| LinkModel | OpenURL |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-j113a-4afc3e842da027123548c48a2c284850f1e879ea2424e3b0463781a9d894f5a23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jniph/72/4/72_344/_article/-char/ja |
| PageCount | 26 |
| ParticipantIDs | jstage_primary_article_jniph_72_4_72_344_article_char_ja |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2023/10/31 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2023-10-31 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 10 year: 2023 text: 2023/10/31 day: 31 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationTitle | 保健医療科学 |
| PublicationYear | 2023 |
| Publisher | 国立保健医療科学院 |
| Publisher_xml | – name: 国立保健医療科学院 |
| References | [24] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):117-122. [110] Evans MF, Taylor LO. Using revealed preference methods to estimate the value of reduced mortality risk: best practice recommendations for the hedonic wage model [published online September 29, 2020]. Rev Environ Econ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa006 (accessed 2021-01-01) [83] Tam-Tham H, Clement F, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. A cost analysis and cost-utility analysis of a community pharmacist–led intervention on reducing cardiovascular risk: the Alberta Vascular Risk Reduction Community Pharmacy Project (RxEACH). Value Health. 2019;22(10):1128-1136. [56] Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. [147] Li B, Cairns JA, Johnson RJ, et al. Equity-efficiency trade-offs associated with alternative approaches to deceased donor kidney allocation: a patient-level simulation. Transplantation. 2020;104(4):795-803. [127] Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Balk EM, Wong JB. Recommendations for the conduct and reporting of modeling and simulation studies in health technology assessment. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(8):575-581. [54] Hawton A, Boddy K, Kandiyali R, Tatnell L, Gibson A, Goodwin E. Involving patients in health economics research: “the PACTS principles.”. Patient. 2021;14(4):429-434. [163] Jang S, Kwang CY, Majhail NS. Financial conflicts of interest are common and frequently influence conclusions of economic analyses presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. Blood. 2009;114(22):810. [125] Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15(12):1295-1310. [38] Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine [published correction appears in JAMA. 2016;316(18):1924]. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093-1103. [156] Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1453-1457. [8] Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1996. [11] Nuijten MJ, Pronk MH, Brorens MJ, et al. Reporting format for economic evaluation: part II: focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;14(3):259-268. [30] Code of ethics for medical research publication principles for publication professionals. International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. https://www.ismpp.org/code-of-ethics-a#:w:text=The%202019%20ISMPP%20Code%20of,work%20of%20medical%20publication%20professionals (accessed 2021-07-21) [152] Love-Koh J, Peel A, Rejon-Parrilla JC, et al. The future of precision medicine: potential impacts for health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(12):1439-1451. [119] Xu X, Lazar CM, Ruger JP. Micro-costing in health and medicine: a critical appraisal. Health Econ Rev. 2021;11(1):1. [155] Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7543):699-703. [17] Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1548. [167] Drazen JM, Van Der Weyden MB, Sahni P, et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. CMAJ. 2009;181(9):565. [39] Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. CADTH. https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/how-we-do-it/methods-andguidelines/guidelines-for-the-economic-evaluation-of-health-technologiescanada (accessed 2021-04-06) [13] Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic valuations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):165-171. [61] Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) II. ISPOR. https://www.ispor.org/member-groups/task-forces/consolidatedhealth-economic-evaluation-reporting-standards-(cheers)-2 (accessed 2021-08-13) [133] Vemer P, Corro Ramos I, van Voorn Ga, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. AdViSHE: a validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(4):349-361. [29] Report submission. National Institute of Health Research. https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/information-for-authors/getting-started/report-submission.htm (accessed 2021-04-06) [109] Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, et al. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: explanation and elaboration. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(10):993-1011. [93] Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. [7] Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. A report on principles. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123(1):61-70. [75] Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Trials. 2009;10:43. [82] Möhler R, Köpke S, Meyer G. Criteria for reporting the development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare: revised guideline (CRe-DECI 2). Trials. 2015;16:204. [124] Marx FM, Cohen T, Menzies NA, Salomon JA, Theron G, Yaesoubi R. Cost-effectiveness of post-treatment follow-up examinations and secondary prevention of tuberculosis in a high-incidence setting: a model-based analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(9):e1223-e1233. [10] Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339-1341. [26] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(3):367-372. [53] Ryan M, Moran PS, Harrington P, et al. Contribution of stakeholder engagement to the impact of a health technology assessment: an Irish case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(4):424-429. [142] Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Matthews R, Minogue V. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e017124. [70] Thorn JC, Davies CF, Brookes ST, et al. Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey. Value Health. 2021;24(4):539-547. [84] Kim DD, Silver MC, Kunst N, Cohen JT, Ollendorf DA, Neumann PJ. Perspective and costing in cost-effectiveness analysis, 1974-2018 [published correction appears in Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(12):1377]. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(10):1135-1145. [106] Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403-413. [19] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BJOG. 2013;120(6):765-770. [114] Tarricone R. Cost-of-illness analysis. What room in health economics? Health Policy. 2006;77(1):51-63. [113] Xie F, Pickard AS, Krabbe PF, et al. A checklist for reporting valuation studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE). Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):867-877. [160] Al-Badriyeh D, Alameri M, Al-Okka R. Cost-effectiveness research in cancer therapy: a systematic review of literature trends, methods and the influence of funding. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e012648. [90] Mattingly 2nd TJ, Slejko JF, Onukwugha E, Perfetto EM, Kottilil S, Mullins CD. Value in hepatitis C virus treatment: a patient-centered cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):233-242. [12] Vintzileos AM, Beazoglou T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(4):1070-1076. [151] Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):799-806. [6] Emerson J, Panzer A, Cohen JT, et al. Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0205633. [122] Shemilt I, Thomas J, Morciano M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evidence and Policy. 2010;6(1):51-59. [43] Jansen JP, Incerti D, Linthicum MT. Developing open-source models for the US health system: practical experiences and challenges to date with the opensource value project. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(11):1313-1320. [81] Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. [139] Norheim OF, Emanuel EJ, Millum J, eds. Global health priority-setting: Beyond cost-effectiveness. 1st ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2019. [121] Mason JM, Chalmers JR, Godec T, et al. Doxycycline compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with bullous pemphigoid: cost-effectiveness analysis of the BLISTER trial. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(2):415-423. [102] Barker AK, Scaria E, Safdar N, Alagoz O. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of infection control strategies to reduce hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(8):e2012522. [146] Staniszewska S, Hill EM, Grant R, et al. Developing a framework for public involvement in mathematical and economic modelling: bringing new dynamism to vaccination policy recommendations. Patient. 2021;14(4):435-445. [25] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Conso |
| References_xml | – reference: [65] Li J, Fairhurst C, Peckham E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a specialist smoking cessation package compared with standard smoking cessation services for people with severe mental illness in England: a trial-based economic evaluation from the SCIMITAR1 study. Addiction. 2020;115(11):2113-2122. – reference: [168] Catalá-López F, Caulley L, Ridao M, et al. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e034463. – reference: [106] Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403-413. – reference: [112] Malley JN, Towers AM, Netten AP, Brazier JE, Forder JE, Flynn T. An assessment of the construct validity of the ASCOT measure of social care-related quality of life with older people. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:21. – reference: [167] Drazen JM, Van Der Weyden MB, Sahni P, et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. CMAJ. 2009;181(9):565. – reference: [9] Drummond M, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275-283. – reference: [98] Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices–overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796-803. – reference: [103] Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21(1):587-611. – reference: [126] Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(2):131-148. – reference: [151] Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):799-806. – reference: [21] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049. – reference: [30] Code of ethics for medical research publication principles for publication professionals. International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. https://www.ismpp.org/code-of-ethics-a#:w:text=The%202019%20ISMPP%20Code%20of,work%20of%20medical%20publication%20professionals (accessed 2021-07-21) – reference: [69] Orsini LS, Monz B, Mullins CD, et al. Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing-Why, what, and how: recommendations and a road map from the real-world evidence transparency initiative. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29(11):1504-1513. – reference: [81] Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. – reference: [116] Park M, Jit M, Wu JT. Cost–benefit analysis of vaccination: a comparative analysis of eight approaches for valuing changes to mortality and morbidity risks. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):139. – reference: [1] Pitt C, Goodman C, Hanson K. Economic evaluation in global perspective: a bibliometric analysis of the recent literature. Health Econ. 2016;25(suppl 1):9-28. – reference: [74] Hernández AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, Habbema JD, Steyerberg EW. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J. 2006;151(2):257-264. – reference: [148] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387-395. – reference: [78] Sun X, Briel M,Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ. 2010;340:c117. – reference: [121] Mason JM, Chalmers JR, Godec T, et al. Doxycycline compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with bullous pemphigoid: cost-effectiveness analysis of the BLISTER trial. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(2):415-423. – reference: [7] Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. A report on principles. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123(1):61-70. – reference: [44] Smith R, Schneider P. Making health economic models Shiny: a tutorial. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:69. – reference: [66] Elliott J, McCoy B, Clifford T, Potter BK, Wells GA, Coyle D. Economic evaluation of cannabinoid oil for Dravet syndrome: a cost-utility analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(9):971-980. – reference: [86] Kim DD, Wilkinson CL, Pope EF, Chambers JD, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. The influence of time horizon on results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(6):615-623. – reference: [60] Bond K, Stiffell R, Ollendorf DA. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment [published online August 4, 2020]. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320000550 (accessed 2021-01-01) – reference: [25] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. J Med Econ. 2013;16(6):713-719. – reference: [161] Catalá-López F, Sanfélix-Gimeno G, Ridao M, Peiró S. When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69462. – reference: [6] Emerson J, Panzer A, Cohen JT, et al. Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0205633. – reference: [154] Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, Rosenheck RA, Woods SW. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:498-506. – reference: [114] Tarricone R. Cost-of-illness analysis. What room in health economics? Health Policy. 2006;77(1):51-63. – reference: [75] Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Trials. 2009;10:43. – reference: [8] Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1996. – reference: [92] Ogrinc G, Armstrong GE, Dolansky MA, Singh MK, Davies L. SQUIRE-EDU (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence in Education): publication guidelines for educational improvement. Acad Med. 2019;94(10):1461-1470. – reference: [55] Malone DC, Ramsey SD, Patrick DL, et al. Criteria and process for initiating and developing an ISPOR good practices task force report. Value Health. 2020;23(4):409-415. – reference: [43] Jansen JP, Incerti D, Linthicum MT. Developing open-source models for the US health system: practical experiences and challenges to date with the opensource value project. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(11):1313-1320. – reference: [101] Steinbeisser K, Schwarzkopf L, Graessel E, Seidl H. Cost-effectiveness of a non-pharmacological treatment vs. “care as usual” in day care centers for community-dwelling older people with cognitive impairment: results from the German randomized controlled DeTaMAKS-trial. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(6):825-844. – reference: [169] Sperber AD. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(1 suppl 1):S124-S128. – reference: [133] Vemer P, Corro Ramos I, van Voorn Ga, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. AdViSHE: a validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(4):349-361. – reference: [135] Arifin SMN, Zimmer C, Trotter C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternative uses of polyvalent meningococcal vaccines in Niger: an agent-based transmission modeling study. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(5):553-567. – reference: [54] Hawton A, Boddy K, Kandiyali R, Tatnell L, Gibson A, Goodwin E. Involving patients in health economics research: “the PACTS principles.”. Patient. 2021;14(4):429-434. – reference: [63] Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=scholcom (accessed 2021-07-21) – reference: [118] Spacírová Z, Epstein D, García-Mochón L, Rovira J, Olry de Labry Lima A, Espín J. A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care [published correction appears in Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22(5):847]. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(4):529-542. – reference: [45] Open source models. ISPOR. https://www.ispor.org/member-groups/specialinterest-groups/open-source-models (accessed 2021-04-06) – reference: [59] Crown W, Buyukkaramikli N, Thokala P, et al. Constrained optimization methods in health services research - an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2017;20(3):310-319. – reference: [159] Catalá-López F, Ridao M. Potencial sesgo de patrocinio en los análisis costeefectividad de intervenciones sanitarias: un análisis transversal [Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: a cross-sectional analysis]. Aten Primaria. 2017;49(6):335-342. (in Spanish) – reference: [49] Wilkinson T, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. The international decision support initiative reference case for economic evaluation: an aid to thought. Value Health. 2016;19(8):921-928. – reference: [3] Panzer AD, Emerson JG, D’Cruz B, et al. Growth and capacity for cost-effectiveness analysis in Africa. Health Econ. 2020;29(8):945-954. – reference: [122] Shemilt I, Thomas J, Morciano M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evidence and Policy. 2010;6(1):51-59. – reference: [83] Tam-Tham H, Clement F, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. A cost analysis and cost-utility analysis of a community pharmacist–led intervention on reducing cardiovascular risk: the Alberta Vascular Risk Reduction Community Pharmacy Project (RxEACH). Value Health. 2019;22(10):1128-1136. – reference: [123] Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409-418. – reference: [71] Chalmers JR, Wojnarowska F, Kirtschig G, et al. A randomised controlled trial to compare the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Doxycycline (200 Mg/Day) with that of oral Prednisolone (0.5 Mg/Kg/Day) for initial treatment of bullous pemphigoid: the bullous pemphigoid steroids and tetracyclines (BLISTER) trial. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(10):1-90. – reference: [87] Polly DW, Larson AN, Samdani AF, et al. Cost-utility analysis of anterior vertebral body tethering versus spinal fusion in idiopathic scoliosis from a US integrated healthcare delivery system perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:175-190. – reference: [48] Mauskopf J, Standaert B, Connolly MP, et al. Economic analysis of vaccination programs: an ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force report [published correction appears in Value Health. 2019;22(3):383] [published correction appears in Value Health. 2019;22(4):502]. Value Health. 2018;21(10):1133-1149. – reference: [80] Augustovski F, Chaparro M, Palacios A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive approach for hypertension control in low-income settings in Argentina: trial-based analysis of the hypertension control program in Argentina. Value Health. 2018;21(12):1357-1364. – reference: [117] Verberne DPJ, van Mastrigt GAPG, Ponds RWHM, van Heugten CM, Kroese MEAL. Economic evaluation of nurse-led stroke aftercare addressing long-term psychosocial outcome: a comparison to care-as-usual. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e039201. – reference: [152] Love-Koh J, Peel A, Rejon-Parrilla JC, et al. The future of precision medicine: potential impacts for health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(12):1439-1451. – reference: [56] Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. – reference: [24] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):117-122. – reference: [96] Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMAIPD Statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657-1665. – reference: [107] Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300-315. – reference: [134] Griffin E, Hyde C, Long L, et al. Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model. Diagn Progn Res. 2020;4(1):20. – reference: [68] Dritsaki M, Gray A, Petrou S, Dutton S, Lamb SE, Thorn JC. Current UK practices on health economics analysis plans (HEAPs): are we using heaps of them? Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(2):253-257. – reference: [70] Thorn JC, Davies CF, Brookes ST, et al. Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey. Value Health. 2021;24(4):539-547. – reference: [34] Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. – reference: [12] Vintzileos AM, Beazoglou T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(4):1070-1076. – reference: [35] Sanghera S, Frew E, Roberts T. Adapting the CHEERS statement for reporting cost–benefit analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(5):533-534. – reference: [108] Stalmeier PF, Goldstein MK, Holmes AM, et al. What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Med Decis Making. 2001;21(3):200-207. – reference: [115] Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi I, et al. Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: an ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report. Value Health. 2019;22(3):267-275. – reference: [42] Dunlop WCN, Mason N, Kenworthy J, Akehurst RL. Benefits, challenges and potential strategies of open source health economic models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(1):125-128. – reference: [141] Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835-842. – reference: [143] Xie RZ, Malik ED, Linthicum MT, Bright JL. Putting stakeholder engagement at the Center of Health Economic Modeling for Health Technology Assessment in The United States. PharmacoEconomics. 2021;39(6):631-638. – reference: [39] Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. CADTH. https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/how-we-do-it/methods-andguidelines/guidelines-for-the-economic-evaluation-of-health-technologiescanada (accessed 2021-04-06) – reference: [144] van Voorn GA, Vemer P, Hamerlijnck D, et al. The missing stakeholder group: why patients should be involved in health economic modelling. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(2):129-133. – reference: [138] Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB. Inquiry into the relationship between equity weights and the value of the QALY. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1119-1126. – reference: [73] Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(7):426-432. – reference: [52] Lorgelly PK. Patient and public involvement in health economics and outcomes research. Patient. 2021;14(4):379-380. – reference: [5] Caulley L, Catalá-López F, Whelan J, et al. Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;122:87-94. – reference: [46] Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Wong JB. A call for open-source cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(6):432-433. – reference: [79] Heart Protection Study Collaborative, Mihaylova B, Briggs A, et al. Lifetime cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in a range of risk groups and age groups derived from a randomised trial of 20,536 people. BMJ. 2006;333(7579):1145. – reference: [76] Lagakos SW. The challenge of subgroup analyses–reporting without distorting [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2006;355(5):533]. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(16):1667-1669. – reference: [15] Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on decision making – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270. – reference: [89] Datta S, Pink J, Medley GF, et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination strategies for adolescent girls and boys in the UK. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):552. – reference: [58] Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5-14. – reference: [82] Möhler R, Köpke S, Meyer G. Criteria for reporting the development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare: revised guideline (CRe-DECI 2). Trials. 2015;16:204. – reference: [33] Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):W163-W194. – reference: [57] Drummond M. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015. – reference: [160] Al-Badriyeh D, Alameri M, Al-Okka R. Cost-effectiveness research in cancer therapy: a systematic review of literature trends, methods and the influence of funding. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e012648. – reference: [136] Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. Statin cost-effectiveness in the United States for people at different vascular risk levels. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2(2):65-72. – reference: [26] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(3):367-372. – reference: [84] Kim DD, Silver MC, Kunst N, Cohen JT, Ollendorf DA, Neumann PJ. Perspective and costing in cost-effectiveness analysis, 1974-2018 [published correction appears in Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(12):1377]. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(10):1135-1145. – reference: [11] Nuijten MJ, Pronk MH, Brorens MJ, et al. Reporting format for economic evaluation: part II: focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;14(3):259-268. – reference: [27] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(5):361-367. – reference: [113] Xie F, Pickard AS, Krabbe PF, et al. A checklist for reporting valuation studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE). Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):867-877. – reference: [64] Paisley S. Classification of evidence in decision-analytic models of cost-effectiveness: a content analysis of published reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):458-462. – reference: [120] Hay JW, Smeeding J, Carroll NV, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost effectiveness analyses: issues and recommendations: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report–Part I. Value Health. 2010;13(1):3-7. – reference: [156] Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1453-1457. – reference: [129] Jo Y, Kagujje M, Johnson K, et al. Costs and cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive tuberculosis case finding strategy in Zambia. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0256531. – reference: [47] WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/immunization/documents/who_ivb_19.10/en/ (accessed 2021-04-06) – reference: [132] Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733-743. – reference: [102] Barker AK, Scaria E, Safdar N, Alagoz O. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of infection control strategies to reduce hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(8):e2012522. – reference: [142] Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Matthews R, Minogue V. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e017124. – reference: [50] Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 2):231-245. – reference: [40] Practical considerations when critically assessing economic evaluations. Guidance document. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EUnetHTA-JA3WP6B2-5-Guidance-Critical-Assessment-EE_v1-0.pdf (accessed 2021-04-06) – reference: [93] Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. – reference: [130] Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843-850. – reference: [88] O’Mahony JF, Newall AT, van Rosmalen J. Dealing with time in health economic evaluation: methodological issues and recommendations for practice. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(12):1255-1268. – reference: [150] Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ. 1999;318(7193):1224-1225. – reference: [51] Cookson R, Griffin S, Norheim OF, Culyer AJ, Chalkidou K. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis comes of age. Value Health. 2021;24(1):118-120. – reference: [32] Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. – reference: [61] Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) II. ISPOR. https://www.ispor.org/member-groups/task-forces/consolidatedhealth-economic-evaluation-reporting-standards-(cheers)-2 (accessed 2021-08-13) – reference: [16] Davis JC, Robertson MC, Comans T, Scuffham PA. Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(9):2449-2459. – reference: [99] Salameh JP, Bossuyt PM, McGrath TA, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ. 2020;370:m2632. – reference: [31] Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. The EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/ (accessed 2021-04-09) – reference: [62] Altman DG, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med. 2016;109(2):67-77. – reference: [17] Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1548. – reference: [53] Ryan M, Moran PS, Harrington P, et al. Contribution of stakeholder engagement to the impact of a health technology assessment: an Irish case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(4):424-429. – reference: [104] Menegaki AN, Olsen SB, Tsagarakis KP. Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys. J Choice Modell. 2016;18(C):18-50. – reference: [23] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11(1):6. – reference: [13] Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic valuations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):165-171. – reference: [139] Norheim OF, Emanuel EJ, Millum J, eds. Global health priority-setting: Beyond cost-effectiveness. 1st ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2019. – reference: [90] Mattingly 2nd TJ, Slejko JF, Onukwugha E, Perfetto EM, Kottilil S, Mullins CD. Value in hepatitis C virus treatment: a patient-centered cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):233-242. – reference: [119] Xu X, Lazar CM, Ruger JP. Micro-costing in health and medicine: a critical appraisal. Health Econ Rev. 2021;11(1):1. – reference: [125] Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15(12):1295-1310. – reference: [157] Garattini L, Koleva D, Casadei G. Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):330-333. – reference: [100] Extending the QALY: about the project. The University of Sheffield. https://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/e-qaly/about-the-project/ (accessed 2021-05-20) – reference: [165] Valachis A, Polyzos NP, Nearchou A, Lind P, Mauri D. Financial relationships in economic analyses of targeted therapies in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1316-1320. – reference: [28] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1-e5. – reference: [38] Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine [published correction appears in JAMA. 2016;316(18):1924]. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093-1103. – reference: [95] Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429-437. – reference: [164] Jang S, Chae YK, Haddad T, Majhail NS. Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121(2):273-279. – reference: [166] Polyzos NP, Valachis A, Mauri D, Ioannidis JP. Industry involvement and baseline assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses: diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou test. CMAJ. 2011;183(6):E337-E343. – reference: [124] Marx FM, Cohen T, Menzies NA, Salomon JA, Theron G, Yaesoubi R. Cost-effectiveness of post-treatment follow-up examinations and secondary prevention of tuberculosis in a high-incidence setting: a model-based analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(9):e1223-e1233. – reference: [127] Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Balk EM, Wong JB. Recommendations for the conduct and reporting of modeling and simulation studies in health technology assessment. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(8):575-581. – reference: [77] Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(33):1-56. – reference: [140] Yang F, Angus C, Duarte A, Gillespie D, Walker S, Griffin S. Impact of socioeconomic differences on distributional cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(5):606-618. – reference: [41] Thorn J, Ridyard C, Hughes D, et al. Health economics analysis plans: where are we now? Value Health. 2016;19(7):A397. – reference: [158] Hendrix N, Kim DD, Patel KS, Devine B. Differences in the selection of health state utility values by sponsorship in published cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(3):366-372. – reference: [36] Walker DG, Wilson RF, Sharma R, et al. Best practices for conducting economic evaluations in health care: a systematic review of quality assessment tools. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114545/ (accessed 2021-07-12) – reference: [20] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMC Med. 2013;11:80. – reference: [131] Stout NK, Knudsen AB, Kong CY, McMahon PM, Gazelle GS. Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(7):533-545. – reference: [111] Coast J, Kinghorn P, Mitchell P. The development of capability measures in health economics: opportunities, challenges and progress. Patient. 2015;8(2):119-126. – reference: [155] Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7543):699-703. – reference: [18] Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1766. – reference: [153] Neilan AM, Losina E, Bangs AC, et al. Clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of expanded Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 testing in Massachusetts. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(9):e2908-e2917. – reference: [145] Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13. – reference: [19] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BJOG. 2013;120(6):765-770. – reference: [162] Moure-Fernandez A, Hollinghurst S, Carroll FE, et al. Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e033567. – reference: [91] Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001885. – reference: [10] Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339-1341. – reference: [128] Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):461-477. – reference: [109] Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, et al. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: explanation and elaboration. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(10):993-1011. – reference: [85] Kremer IEH, Hiligsmann M, Carlson J, et al. Exploring the cost effectiveness of shared decision making for choosing between disease-modifying drugs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands: a state transition model. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(8):1003-1019. – reference: [147] Li B, Cairns JA, Johnson RJ, et al. Equity-efficiency trade-offs associated with alternative approaches to deceased donor kidney allocation: a patient-level simulation. Transplantation. 2020;104(4):795-803. – reference: [94] Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. – reference: [4] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) – explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231-250. – reference: [72] Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis) uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355(9209):1064-1069. – reference: [29] Report submission. National Institute of Health Research. https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/information-for-authors/getting-started/report-submission.htm (accessed 2021-04-06) – reference: [22] Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Clin Ther. 2013;35(4):356-363. – reference: [163] Jang S, Kwang CY, Majhail NS. Financial conflicts of interest are common and frequently influence conclusions of economic analyses presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. Blood. 2009;114(22):810. – reference: [146] Staniszewska S, Hill EM, Grant R, et al. Developing a framework for public involvement in mathematical and economic modelling: bringing new dynamism to vaccination policy recommendations. Patient. 2021;14(4):435-445. – reference: [149] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637-650. – reference: [14] Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II - An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2015;18(2):161-172. – reference: [137] Cookson R, Griffin S, Norheim OF, Culyer AJ, eds. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: Quantifying equity impacts and trade-offs. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2020. – reference: [2] Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, Saret CJ, Cohen JT. The changing face of the cost utility literature, 1990-2012. Value Health. 2015;18(2):271-277. – reference: [37] Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282(11):1054-1060. – reference: [105] Smith RD, Sach TH. Contingent valuation: what needs to be done? Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;5(Pt 1):91-111. – reference: [110] Evans MF, Taylor LO. Using revealed preference methods to estimate the value of reduced mortality risk: best practice recommendations for the hedonic wage model [published online September 29, 2020]. Rev Environ Econ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reaa006 (accessed 2021-01-01) – reference: [67] Zeevat F, Crépey P, Dolk FCK, Postma AJ, Breeveld-Dwarkasing VNA, Postma MJ. Cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccination in the Dutch National Influenza Prevention Program. Value Health. 2021;24(1):3-10. – reference: [97] Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777-784. |
| SSID | ssib001021428 ssib002221506 ssib003037689 ssib002003701 ssib058492896 ssj0003314296 ssib023161128 ssib044738623 |
| Score | 2.36298 |
| Snippet | 医療経済評価は，費用と結果の点から，代替案との比較分析を行うものである．2013年に公表されたCHEERS（The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting... |
| SourceID | jstage |
| SourceType | Publisher |
| StartPage | 344 |
| SubjectTerms | ガイドライン ミクロ経済分析 基準 報告 方法論 経済評価 費用便益分析 |
| Subtitle | ISPOR（国際医薬経済・アウトカム研究学会）CHEERS II Good Practices タスクフォース報告書 |
| Title | CHEERS（Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards）2022 詳細と解説 |
| URI | https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jniph/72/4/72_344/_article/-char/ja |
| Volume | 72 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| ispartofPNX | 保健医療科学, 2023/10/31, Vol.72(4), pp.344-369 |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 2432-0722 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssib044738623 issn: 1347-6459 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20020101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9NAELZKuSAhxFO85QNzihyc3bW9e7TdjSKkcoBWqsTB2jixaFSlFaQXDkjc4Hdw4CEOSHDsv-FAbv0LzOw6toM4lF5Wm93x2OvdyTzk-cbzHkWqiqlKdBBGYxkIVbHAjBMVhBOTlAq9okRRovD203i0K57sRXsbFw46Xy0dL8b98s0_80rOs6s4hvtKWbL_sbMNUxzAPu4vtrjD2J5pj_OR1s-egx5CloOUVHzz8GCffPjJKr9olXjc0w2sd210OyhuF0h4veKhGGrbHmgJqYKMg04gE5CFoDnanJBKO5VAym0nhRq6sTZvQSPxENQW6MjSR7aTQ5YRK6VAMuogBzWgqXQL0iY2SAN4KzkEHYPSQOi9eY9-SGSiWzJkEFsyZGOfriZTEbRQkvUNM_ssGaMFWbL6wVoyCZJbMkefOTL8kYMa2hUhRdgNjzDe0St0oImrymomaQYyO9-bAK1oKu3EYikJNyAsHqdK7RgTnD7mZWsKJmEdQRIdbcEd9GVteHBXs-ZvncbCWBK4xmy-f_Syn7C-KJrr1oDC62NYWMIiYYWgBmmL1Qwl8hUz9CYuMtSBVOhk-63uBAcs_F5rvBE2Udgx7hgjOMqOdkDl1NYqQEchRuO9uV4IqifbGp9o6Sr07uMmAso53s4W0GvepMPesit-vL5eNBBn6C6tPrW01t_OVe9K7bb5qVviNW9jZq57l13M23eidsN74eTx9OR9VxLraX8liX4riX4jiX4jiacnH0gG_eWXH79_fv_17vPy08fl1283vd2h3slHQV28JJgNBtwEwlQln0rBJiZkCWWkC1kKaViJBqGMwmowlfg_aCg9a8rHBNyXyIFRE6lEFRnGb3mb88P59Lbnq2pSSmFEUhJ6ZhQZLpkZMz4VFTZJeMeT7t0URw6hpjjzUbh7_kvveZdaebvvbS5eHU8foIG-GD-05-oPqJy6VA |
| linkProvider | ISSN International Centre |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CHEERS%EF%BC%88Consolidated+Health+Economic+Evaluation+Reporting+Standards%EF%BC%892022+%E8%A9%B3%E7%B4%B0%E3%81%A8%E8%A7%A3%E8%AA%AC&rft.jtitle=%E4%BF%9D%E5%81%A5%E5%8C%BB%E7%99%82%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6&rft.au=%E5%B0%8F%E6%9E%97%2C+%E6%85%8E&rft.au=%E7%A6%8F%E7%94%B0%2C+%E6%95%AC&rft.au=%E7%99%BD%E5%B2%A9%2C+%E5%81%A5&rft.au=%E8%83%BD%E7%99%BB%2C+%E7%9C%9F%E4%B8%80&rft.date=2023-10-31&rft.pub=%E5%9B%BD%E7%AB%8B%E4%BF%9D%E5%81%A5%E5%8C%BB%E7%99%82%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E9%99%A2&rft.issn=1347-6459&rft.eissn=2432-0722&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=344&rft.epage=369&rft_id=info:doi/10.20683%2Fjniph.72.4_344&rft.externalDocID=article_jniph_72_4_72_344_article_char_ja |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1347-6459&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1347-6459&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1347-6459&client=summon |