Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 12;16:26. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01094-3

Table 5.

CHEERS quality rating

CHEERS item [29] [28] [20] [25] [32] [33] [26] [30] [34] [21] [31] [27] [24] [22] [35] [23] [36] [19] Mean
1 Titlea 1 1 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A N/A 1 100%
2 Abstract 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 97%
3 Background 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%
4 Population 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%
5 Setting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%
6 Perspective 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 92%
7 Comparators 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 100%
8 Time horizon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 94%
9 Discount rate 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 8%
10 Choice of health outcomes N/A 1 0.5 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A 1 1 1 95%
11 Effectiveness N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100%
12 Measurement /valuation 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 80%
13 Resources & costs 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 0 N/A 1 92%
14 Currency/ price conversion 1 1 1 1 N/A N/A 1 0.5 0 N/A 0 1 1 0.5 N/A 1 N/A 0.5 73%
15 Model choice 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 N/A 0 1 1 79%
16 Assumptions 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 N/A 0 1 1 59%
17 Analysis 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 89%
18 Parameters 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 1 1 92%
19 Incremental costs/outcomes N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 1 1 1 88%
20 Uncertainty 0 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 1 40%
21 Heterogeneity 1 1 N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 1 100%
22 Discussion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 94%
23 Funding 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 83%
24 Conflicts 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 83%
Mean score 90% 88% 76% 90% 100% 100% 75% 88% 76% 93% 79% 95% 81% 91% 100% 65% 100% 82% 87%

aStudies with N/A for "Title" were not focused on economic evaluation, but included costing; 0.5 indicates partial fulfillment of the criteria