Table 1:

Expected capacity (i.e., weak, moderate, strong) of typical early, preliminary (Pre) and full cost-utility analysis (CUA) to address the 27-item of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Section and item number		Recommendation	CUA
			Early	Pre	Full
Title and abstract
Title	1	Identify the study as an economic evaluation or use more specific terms such as “cost-effectiveness analysis”, and describe the interventions compared.	Strong	Strong	Strong
Abstract	2	Provide a structured summary of objectives, perspective, setting, methods (including study design and inputs), results (including base case and uncertainty analyses), and conclusions.	Strong	Strong	Strong
Introduction
Background and objectives	3	Provide an explicit statement of the broader context for the study. Present the study question and its relevance for health policy or practice decisions.	Strong	Strong	Strong
Methods
Target population and subgroups	4	Describe characteristics of the base case population and subgroups analysed, including why they were chosen.	Moderate	Moderate	Strong
Setting and location	5	State relevant aspects of the system(s) in which the decision(s) need(s) to be made.	Moderate	Strong	Strong
Study perspective	6	Describe the perspective of the study and relate this to the costs being evaluated.	Weak	Moderate	Strong
Comparators	7	Describe the interventions or strategies being compared and state why they were chosen.	Weak	Moderate	Strong
Time horizon	8	State the time horizon(s) over which costs and consequences are being evaluated and say why appropriate.	Moderate	Moderate	Strong
Discount rate	9	Report the choice of discount rate(s) used for costs and outcomes and say why appropriate.	Weak	Weak	Strong
Choice of health outcomes	10	Describe what outcomes were used as the measure(s) of benefit in the evaluation and their relevance for the type of analysis performed.	Weak	Weak	Strong
Measurement of effectiveness	11a	Single study-based estimates: Describe fully the design features of the single effectiveness study and why the single study was a sufficient source of clinical effectiveness data.	Weak	Weak	Strong
	11b	Synthesis-based estimates: Describe fully the methods used for identification of included studies and synthesis of clinical effectiveness data.	Weak	Weak	Strong
Measurement and valuation of preference based outcomes	12	If applicable, describe the population and methods used to elicit preferences for outcomes.	Weak	Weak	Strong
Estimating resources and costs	13a	Single study-based economic evaluation: Describe approaches used to estimate resource use associated with the alternative interventions. Describe primary or secondary research methods for valuing each resource item in terms of its unit cost. Describe any adjustments made to approximate to opportunity costs.	Weak	Weak	Strong
	13b	Model-based economic evaluation: Describe approaches and data sources used to estimate resource use associated with model health states. Describe primary or secondary research methods for valuing each resource item in terms of its unit cost. Describe any adjustments made to approximate to opportunity costs.	Weak	Weak	Strong
Currency, price date, and conversion	14	Report the dates of the estimated resource quantities and unit costs. Describe methods for adjusting estimated unit costs to the year of reported costs if necessary. Describe methods for converting costs into a common currency base and the exchange rate.	Strong	Strong	Strong
Choice of model	15	Describe and give reasons for the specific type of decision analytical model used. Providing a figure to show model structure is strongly recommended.	Moderate	Strong	Strong
Assumptions	16	Describe all structural or other assumptions underpinning the decision-analytical model.	Weak	Moderate	Strong
Analytical methods	17	Describe all analytical methods supporting the evaluation. This could include methods for dealing with skewed, missing, or censored data; extrapolation methods; methods for pooling data; approaches to validate or make adjustments (such as half cycle corrections) to a model; and methods for handling population heterogeneity and uncertainty.	Weak	Moderate	Strong
Results
Study parameters	18	Report the values, ranges, references, and, if used, probability distributions for all parameters. Report reasons or sources for distributions used to represent uncertainty where appropriate. Providing a table to show the input values is strongly recommended.	Weak	Moderate	Strong
Incremental costs and outcomes	19	For each intervention, report mean values for the main categories of estimated costs and outcomes of interest, as well as mean differences between the comparator groups. If applicable, report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.	Strong	Strong	Strong
Characterising uncertainty	20a	Single study-based economic evaluation: Describe the effects of sampling uncertainty for the estimated incremental cost and incremental effectiveness parameters, together with the impact of methodological assumptions (such as discount rate, study perspective).	Weak	Moderate	Strong
	20b	Model-based economic evaluation: Describe the effects on the results of uncertainty for all input parameters, and uncertainty related to the structure of the model and assumptions.	Weak	Weak	Strong
Characterising heterogeneity	21	If applicable, report differences in costs, outcomes, or cost effectiveness that can be explained by variations between subgroups of patients with different baseline characteristics or other observed variability in effects that are not reducible by more information.	Weak	Weak	Strong
Discussion
Study findings, limitations, generalisability, and current knowledge	22	Summarise key study findings and describe how they support the conclusions reached. Discuss limitations and the generalisability of the findings and how the findings fit with current knowledge.	Strong	Strong	Strong
Other
Source of funding	23	Describe how the study was funded and the role of the funder in the identification, design, conduct, and reporting of the analysis. Describe other non-monetary sources of support.	Strong	Strong	Strong
Conflicts of interest	24	Describe any potential for conflict of interest of study contributors in accordance with journal policy. In the absence of a journal policy, we recommend authors comply with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations.	Strong	Strong	Strong