Table 4.
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist items and Report of the International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Good Research Practices—Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) items to assess quality of reporting of economic evaluation and BIA studies on pre-eclampsia diagnosis and treatment options
| CHEERS section/item | Item no. | References | Recommendation for BIA reporting format | Reference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shmueli [27] | Meads [26] | Vijgen [29] | Simon [28] | Blackwell [30] | Hadker [25] | |||
| Title and abstract | ||||||||
| Title | 1 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Title | Y |
| Abstract | 2 | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Abstract | Y |
| Introduction | ||||||||
| Background and objectives | 3 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Epidemiology and treatment | Y |
| Clinical impact | Y | |||||||
| Economic impact | Y | |||||||
| Technology details | Y | |||||||
| Choice of comparator | Y | |||||||
| Methods | ||||||||
| Target population and subgroups | 4 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Patient population | Y |
| Setting and location | 5 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Technology mix | Y |
| Study perspective | 6 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Time horizon | N |
| Comparators | 7 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Perspective and target audience | Y |
| Time horizon | 8 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Model description | Y |
| Discount rate | 9 | Y | N | NA | NA | P | Input data: | |
| Choice of health outcomes | 10 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Data sources | P |
| Measurement of effectiveness | 11a | NA | NA | P | P | NA | Data collection | P |
| 11b | P | Y | NA | NA | P | Analysis | Y | |
| Measurement and valuation of preference based outcomes | 12 | P | P | P | P | P | ||
| Estimating resources and costs | 13a | NA | NA | Y | P | NA | ||
| 13b | P | Y | NA | NA | P | |||
| Currency, price date and conversion | 14 | P | Y | Y | Y | P | ||
| Choice of model | 15 | P | P | NA | NA | P | ||
| Assumptions | 16 | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | ||
| Analytical methods | 17 | P | P | P | P | P | ||
| Results | ||||||||
| Study parameters | 18 | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Incremental budget impact | Y |
| Incremental costs and outcomes | 19 | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Sensitivity analysis | Y |
| Characterizing uncertainty | 20a | NA | NA | Y | P | NA | Inclusion of graphics: | |
| 20b | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | Figure of the model | Y | |
| Characterizing heterogeneity | 21 | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | Table of assumptions | Y |
| Tables of inputs and outputs | Y | |||||||
| Schematic representation of sensitivity analysis | P | |||||||
| Discussion | ||||||||
| Study findings, limitations, generalizability and current knowledge | 22 | Y | Y | P | P | Y | ||
| Other | ||||||||
| Source of funding | 23 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | ||
| Conflict of interest | 24 | N | Y | Y | N | N | ||
N no, NA not applicable, P partially, Y yes