Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

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.

Economic Evaluation of Vaccination Programs: A Guide for Selecting Modeling Approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Illustrate 3 economic evaluation methods whose value measures may be useful to decision makers considering vaccination programs. METHODS: Keyword searches identified example publications of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), fiscal health modeling (FHM), and constrained optimization (CO) for economic evaluation of a vaccination program in countries where at least 2 of the methods had been used. We examined the extent to which different value measures may be useful for decision makers considering adoption of a new vaccination program. With these findings, we created a guide for selecting modeling approaches illustrating the decision-maker contexts and policy objectives for which each method may be useful. RESULTS: We identified 8 countries with published evaluations for vaccination programs using >1 method for 4 infections: influenza, human papilloma virus, rotavirus, and malaria. CEA studies targeted health system decision makers using a threshold to determine the efficiency of a new vaccination program. FHM studies targeted public sector spending decision makers estimating lifetime changes in government tax revenue net of transfer payments. CO studies targeted decision makers selecting from a mix of options for preventing an infectious disease within budget and feasibility constraints. Cost and utility inputs, epidemiologic models, comparators, and constraints varied by modeling method. CONCLUSIONS: Although CEAs measures of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are critical for understanding vaccination program efficiency for all decision makers determining access and reimbursement, FHMs provide measures of the program's impact on public spending for government officials, and COs provide measures of the optimal mix of all prevention interventions for public health officials.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

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.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

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.

Evaluating Vaccination Programs That Prevent Diseases With Potentially Catastrophic Health Outcomes: How Can We Capture the Value of Risk Reduction?

In the last 5 years, guidelines have been developed for performing cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for the economic evaluation of vaccination programs against infectious diseases. However, these cost-effectiveness guidelines do not provide specific guidance for including the value of reducing the risk of rare but potentially catastrophic health outcomes, such as mortality or long-term sequelae. Alternative economic evaluation methods, including extended CEA, the impact inventory, cost-benefit analyses, willingness to pay or the value of a statistical life, to capture the value of this risk reduction could provide more complete estimates of the value of vaccination programs for diseases with potentially catastrophic health and nonhealth outcomes. In this commentary, using invasive meningococcal disease as an example, we describe these alternative approaches along with examples to illustrate how the benefits of vaccination in reducing risk of catastrophic health outcomes can be valued. These benefits are not usually captured in CEAs that only include population benefits estimated as the quality-adjusted life-years gained and reduced costs from avoided cases.

Antiseizure medications and oral contraceptives: Impact of enzyme inducers on pregnancy outcomes and costs.

PURPOSE: To show the impact of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) associated with co-administration of enzyme-inducing (EI) antiseizure medications and oral contraceptives (OCs) on the annual number of unintended pregnancies, their outcomes, and their associated costs in the United States (US). METHODS: A Microsoft Excel pregnancy-outcomes model was developed to determine the impact of DDIs in women who take an OC as well as an EI antiseizure medication known to lower the effectiveness of the OC in preventing pregnancy. The model compared the number of unintended pregnancies, the expected pregnancy outcomes, and associated costs in women taking an OC and an EI medication with a matched cohort of women who took an OC and an enzyme-neutral (EN) antiseizure medication that is known not to interact with OCs. The model perspectives were patients and third-party payers in the US. Unintended pregnancy rates, pregnancy outcomes, and cost inputs for the model were taken from published studies. RESULTS: The results of the analysis showed an estimated increase in the annual number of unintended pregnancies in the US of 503 (a change from 1151 to 1654), an increase of 44.7%, for the estimated 71,922 women currently taking an OC plus an EI medication in the US when compared with a matched cohort taking an OC plus an EN medication. This resulted in an estimated annual healthcare cost increase of $3 million, which is an increase of 5.5% in the annual costs for contraception and pregnancy care. A scenario analysis showed that the annual number of unintended pregnancies could be lower (575 vs 1654) for a matched cohort of women taking EI medications and using a copper intrauterine device, a highly effective and nonhormonal form of contraception, rather than an OC. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians treating women of reproductive age for epilepsy who wish to avoid pregnancy should consider the potential for DDIs that might result in unintended pregnancies. Thus, physicians should alert women using EI medications for epilepsy control to the increased potential for unintended pregnancies if they use OCs for contraception.

Multivariable and Structural Uncertainty Analyses for Cost-Effectiveness Estimates: Back to the Future.

BACKGROUND: In this commentary, celebrating the 20th anniversary of the journal Value in Health, I present a brief overview and illustration of the evolution over the past 20 years of the methodological literature providing guidelines for multivariable and structural uncertainty analysis for cost-effectiveness estimates. METHODS: To illustrate the impact of the guidelines for uncertainty analyses, I show how the inclusion of multivariable and structural uncertainty analyses in cost-effectiveness analyses published in Value in Health changed over the past 20 years using publications from 1999/2000, 2007 and 2017. RESULTS: The commentary is organized in three sections: past, focusing on the development and use of methods for multivariable uncertainty analysis; present, focusing on the growing awareness of the need for structural uncertainty analysis, suggested frameworks for structural uncertainty analysis and how it is currently implemented; and future, considering different methods for combining multivariable and structural uncertainty analyses over the next decades. CONCLUSIONS: I conclude by suggesting how the continued evolution of uncertainty analyses in published studies and health technology assessment submissions can best take into account an important goal of cost-effectiveness analyses: to provide useful information to decision makers.

Economic Analysis of Vaccination Programs: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report.

This report provides recommendations for budget holders and decision makers in high-, middle, and low-income countries requiring economic analyses of new vaccination programs to allocate scarce resources given budget constraints. ISPOR's Economic Evaluation of Vaccines Designed to Prevent Infectious Disease: Good Practices Task Force wrote guidelines for three analytic methods and solicited comments on them from external reviewers. Cost-effectiveness analyses use decision-analytic models to estimate cumulative changes in resource use, costs, and changes in quality- or disability-adjusted life-years attributable to changes in disease outcomes. Constrained optimization modeling uses a mathematical objective function to be optimized (e.g. disease cases avoided) for a target population for a set of interventions including vaccination programs within established constraints. Fiscal health modeling estimates changes in net present value of government revenues and expenditures attributable to changes in disease outcomes. The task force recommends that those designing economic analyses for new vaccination programs take into account the decision maker's policy objectives and country-specific decision context when estimating: uptake rate in the target population; vaccination program's impact on disease cases in the population over time using a dynamic transmission epidemiologic model; vaccination program implementation and operating costs; and the changes in costs and health outcomes of the target disease(s). The three approaches to economic analysis are complementary and can be used alone or together to estimate a vaccination program's economic value for national, regional, or subregional decision makers in high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

The main cost drivers in dementia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Because of the increasing prevalence of dementia worldwide, combined with limited healthcare expenditures, a better understanding of the main cost drivers of dementia in different care settings is needed. METHODS: A systematic review of cost-of-illness (COI) studies in dementia was conducted from 2003 to 2012, searching the following databases: PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect (Embase) and National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database. Costs (per patient) by care setting were analyzed for total, direct, indirect and informal costs and related to the following: (1) cost perspective and (2) disease severity. RESULTS: In total, 27 studies from 14 different healthcare systems were evaluated. In the included studies, total annual costs for dementia of up to $70,911 per patient (mixed setting) were estimated (average estimate of total costs = $30,554). The shares of cost categories in the total costs for dementia indicate significant differences for different care settings. Overall main cost drivers of dementia are informal costs due to home based long term care and nursing home expenditures rather than direct medical costs (inpatient and outpatient services, medication). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight the significant economic burden of dementia for patients, families and healthcare systems and thus are important for future health policy planning. The significant variation of cost estimates for different care settings underlines the need to understand and address the financial burden of dementia from both perspectives. For health policy planning in dementia, future COI studies should follow a quality standard protocol with clearly defined cost components and separate estimates by care setting and disease severity.

Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Budget impact analyses (BIAs) are an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of a health care intervention and are increasingly required by reimbursement authorities as part of a listing or reimbursement submission. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this report was to present updated guidance on methods for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses. This update was needed, in part, because of developments in BIA methods as well as a growing interest, particularly in emerging markets, in matters related to affordability and population health impacts of health care interventions. METHODS: The Task Force was approved by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Health Sciences Policy Council and appointed by its Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of BIAs; worked in academia and industry and as advisors to governments; and came from several countries in North America and South America, Oceania, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force solicited comments on the drafts from a core group of external reviewers and, more broadly, from the membership of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RESULTS: The Task Force recommends that the design of a BIA for a new health care intervention should take into account relevant features of the health care system, possible access restrictions, the anticipated uptake of the new intervention, and the use and effects of the current and new interventions. The key elements of a BIA include estimating the size of the eligible population, the current mix of treatments and the expected mix after the introduction of the new intervention, the cost of the treatment mixes, and any changes expected in condition-related costs. Where possible, the BIA calculations should be performed by using a simple cost calculator approach because of its ease of use for budget holders. In instances, however, in which the changes in eligible population size, disease severity mix, or treatment patterns cannot be credibly captured by using the cost calculator approach, a cohort or patient-level condition-specific model may be used to estimate the budget impact of the new intervention, accounting appropriately for those entering and leaving the eligible population over time. In either case, the BIA should use data that reflect values specific to a particular decision maker's population. Sensitivity analysis should be of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision maker. The validation of the model should include at least face validity with decision makers and verification of the calculations. Data sources for the BIA should include published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for the efficacy and safety of the current and new interventions as well as the decision maker's own population for the other parameter estimates, where possible. Other data sources include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information, and, in special circumstances, expert opinion. Reporting of the BIA should provide detailed information about the input parameter values and calculations at a level of detail that would allow another modeler to replicate the analysis. The outcomes of the BIA should be presented in the format of interest to health care decision makers. In a computer program, options should be provided for different categories of costs to be included or excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a framework for the BIA, provide guidance on the acquisition and use of data, and offer a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific BIA guidelines but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.

Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States.

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

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.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. OBJECTIVE: The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. METHODS: The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. RESULTS: Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). CONCLUSIONS: We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.