Table 3:

Typical strengths and weaknesses of the early, preliminary, and full cost-utility analyses (CUA) of prosthetic care innovations.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Full CUA
Address strongly all 27 CHEERS items Capable to address all 19 CHEC items Comprehensive list of scenarios Scalable time horizon Strong understanding of uncertainty Strong understanding of sensibility High level of evidence Strong recommendations	Need of primary costs and utilities data Require substantial resources Lack of timeliness
Preliminary CUA
Address strongly 37% of CHEER items Capable to address 58% of CHEC items Timeliness of information Identify evidence gaps Provide headroom for improvement Capable to generate primary data Educate design of full CUAs Fast-track approval	Address weakly 33% of CHEER items Uncapable to address 42% of CHEC items Variability of resources required Build around substantial assumptions Rely on best-known evidence Consider narrow perspective Consider plausible scenarios, Consider mid-term time horizon Mismatch costs and utilities data Limited understanding of uncertainty Limited understanding of sensitivity Moderate level of evidence Moderate strength of recommendations
Early CUA
Address strongly 30% of CHEER items Capable to address 53% of CHEC items Require little resources Timeliness of information Early insights into product viability Early insights into clinical worthiness Identify evidence gaps Provide headroom for improvement Educate design of preliminary CUAs Facilitate fast-track approval	Address weakly 56% of CHEER items Uncapable to address 47% of CHEC items Build around substantial assumptions Rely on best-known evidence Consider narrow perspective Consider hypothetical scenarios, Consider short-term time horizon Rely of expected costs and utilities data Low understanding of uncertainty Low understanding of sensitivity Low level of evidence Low strength of recommendations