Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2016 Sep 3;35(1):43–63. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0448-2

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

PMC Copyright notice

Fig. 2 — Percentage of maximum Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score per question across the total of studies. Q1: Was the study objective presented in a clear, specific, and measurable manner?; Q2: Were the perspective of the analysis (societal, third-party payer, etc.) and reasons for its selection stated?; Q3: Were variable estimates used in the analysis from the best available source (i.e., randomized control trial—best, expert opinion—worst)?; Q4: If estimates came from a subgroup analysis, were the groups prespecified at the beginning of the study?; Q5: Was uncertainty handled by (1) statistical analysis to address random events, (2) sensitivity analysis to cover a range of assumptions?; Q6: Was incremental analysis performed between alternatives for resources and costs?; Q7: Was the methodology for data abstraction (including the value of health states and other benefits) stated?; Q8: Did the analytic horizon allow time for all relevant and important outcomes? Were benefits and costs that went beyond 1 year discounted (3–5 %) and justification given for the discount rate?; Q9: Was the measurement of costs appropriate and the methodology for the estimation of quantities and unit costs clearly described?; Q10: Were the primary outcome measure(s) for the economic evaluation clearly stated and did they include the major short-term, long-term and negative outcomes included? Was justification given for the measures/scales used?; Q11: Were the health outcomes measures/scales valid and reliable? If previously tested valid and reliable measures were not available, was justification given for the measures/scales used?; Q12: Were the economic model (including structure), study methods and analysis, and the components of the numerator and denominator displayed in a clear, transparent manner?; Q13: Were the choice of economic model, main assumptions, and limitations of the study stated and justified?; Q14: Did the author(s) explicitly discuss direction and magnitude of potential biases?; Q15: Were the conclusions/recommendations of the study justified and based on the study results?; Q16: Was there a statement disclosing the source of funding for the study?