Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-dbm8p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-06T06:23:12.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STRUCTURE FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2013

Marjukka Mäkelä  and
Harri Sintonen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Guidelines for reporting economic evaluations in health care are very welcome. A task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research has organized a two-round, modified Delphi Panel process to compile a set of recommendations for reporting Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. The result is a 24-item checklist with the friendly acronym CHEERS (1), published in this issue of the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

Information

Type
EDITORIAL
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 115 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al.Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Techn Assess Hlth Care 2013;29 (2):116–121 (In this issue).Google ScholarPubMed
2.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 Evaluations Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013;16:231–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Schulz, KF, Altman, DG and Moher, D for the CONSORT Group: CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, Gatsonis, PP, Glasziou, PP, Irwig, LM, Lijmer, JG, Moher, D, Rennie, D, De Vet, HC; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar