Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations


      Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Therapeutics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Pitt C
        • Goodman C
        • Hanson K.
        Economic evaluation in global perspective: a bibliometric analysis of the recent literature.
        Health Econ. 2016; 25: 9-28
        • Neumann PJ
        • Thorat T
        • Shi J
        • Saret CJ
        • Cohen JT.
        The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012.
        Value Health. 2015; 18: 271-277
        • Panzer AD
        • Emerson JG
        • D'Cruz B
        • et al.
        Growth and capacity for cost-effectiveness analysis in Africa.
        Health Econ. 2020; 29: 945-954
        • Husereau D
        • Drummond M
        • Petrou S
        • et al.
        ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines-CHEERS Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: 231-250
        • Caulley L
        • Catala-Lopez F
        • Whelan J
        • et al.
        Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 122: 87-94
        • Emerson J
        • Panzer A
        • Cohen JT
        • et al.
        Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies.
        PLoS One. 2019; 14e0205633
      1. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles.
        Ann Intern Med. 1995; 123: 61-70
        • Gold MR.
        Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        Oxford University Press, 1996
        • Drummond MF
        • Jefferson TO.
        The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ.
        BMJ. 1996; 313: 275-283
        • Siegel JE
        • Weinstein MC
        • Russell LB
        • Gold MR
        Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses.
        JAMA. 1996; 276: 1339-1341
        • Nuijten MJ
        • Pronk MH
        • Brorens MJA
        • et al.
        Reporting format for economic evaluation. Part II: Focus on modelling studies.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 1998; 14: 259-268
        • Vintzileos AM
        • Beazoglou T.
        Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 1070-1076
        • Drummond M
        • Manca A
        • Sculpher M.
        Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005; 21: 165-171
        • Ramsey SD
        • Willke RJ
        • Glick H
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report.
        Value Health. 2015; 18: 161-172
        • Goetghebeur MM
        • Wagner M
        • Khoury H
        • Levitt RJ
        • Erickson LJ
        • Rindress D.
        Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking–the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8: 270
        • Davis JC
        • Robertson MC
        • Comans T
        • Scuffham PA.
        Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies.
        Osteoporos Int. 2011; 22: 2449-2459
        • Petrou S
        • Gray A.
        Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.
        BMJ. 2011; 342: d1548
        • Petrou S
        • Gray A.
        Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.
        BMJ. 2011; 342: d1766
        • Sanghera S
        • Frew E
        • Roberts T.
        Adapting the CHEERS Statement for reporting cost-benefit analysis.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2015; 33: 533-534
        • Walker DG
        • Wilson RF
        • Sharma R
        • et al.
        Best practices for conducting economic evaluations in health care: a systematic review of quality assessment tools.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2012;
        • Jüni P
        • Witschi A
        • Bloch R
        • Egger M.
        The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.
        JAMA. 1999; 282: 1054-1060
        • Sanders GD
        • Neumann PJ
        • Basu A
        • et al.
        Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 1093-1103
      2. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 2015.

      3. EUnetHTA European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Practical considerations when critically assessing economic evaluations. Guidance document. 2021.

        • Thorn J
        • Ridyard C
        • Hughes D
        • et al.
        Health economics analysis plans: Where are we now?.
        Value Health. 2016; 19: A397
        • Dunlop WCN
        • Mason N
        • Kenworthy J
        • Akehurst RL.
        Benefits, challenges and potential strategies of open source health economic models.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35: 125-128
        • Jansen JP
        • Incerti D
        • Linthicum MT.
        Developing open-source models for the US health system: practical experiences and challenges to date with the open-source value project.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2019; 37: 1313-1320
        • Smith R
        • Schneider P.
        Making health economic models Shiny: A tutorial.
        Wellcome Open Res. 2020; 5: 69
      4. ISPOR. Open source models.

        • Cohen JT
        • Neumann PJ
        • Wong JB.
        A call for open-source cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Ann Intern Med. 2017; 167: 432-433
      5. WHO. WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes.

        • Mauskopf J
        • Standaert B
        • Connolly MP
        • et al.
        Economic analysis of vaccination programs: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report.
        Value Health. 2018; 21: 1133-1149
        • Wilkinson T
        • Sculpher MJ
        • Claxton K
        • et al.
        The International Decision Support Initiative reference case for economic evaluation: an aid to thought.
        Value Health. 2016; 19: 921-928
        • Cookson R
        • Drummond M
        • Weatherly H.
        Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions.
        Health Econ Policy Law. 2009; 4: 231-245
        • Cookson R
        • Griffin S
        • Norheim OF
        • Culyer AJ
        • Chalkidou K.
        Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis comes of age.
        Value Health. 2021; 24: 118-120
        • Lorgelly PK.
        Patient and public involvement in health economics and outcomes research.
        Patient. 2021; 14: 379-380
        • Ryan M
        • Moran PS
        • Harrington P
        • et al.
        Contribution of stakeholder engagement to the impact of a health technology assessment: an Irish case study.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017; 33: 424-429
        • Hawton A
        • Boddy K
        • Kandiyali R
        • Tatnell L
        • Gibson A
        • Goodwin E.
        Involving patients in health economics research: “The PACTS Principles”.
        Patient. 2021; 14: 429-434
        • Husereau D
        • Drummond M
        • Augustovski F
        • et al.
        Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Explanation and Elaboration: A report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.
        Value Health. 2022; 25 (XX-XX)
        • Malone DC
        • Ramsey SD
        • Patrick DL
        • et al.
        Criteria and Process for Initiating and Developing an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report.
        Value Health. 2020; 23: 409-415
        • Moher D
        • Schulz KF
        • Simera I
        • Altman DG.
        Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.
        PLoS Med. 2010; 7e1000217
        • Staniszewska S
        • Brett J
        • Simera I
        • et al.
        GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.
        BMJ. 2017; 358: j3453
        • Drummond M.
        Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes.
        4th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015
        • Sullivan SD
        • Mauskopf JA
        • Augustovski F
        • et al.
        Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force.
        Value Health. 2014; 17: 5-14
        • Crown W
        • Buyukkaramikli N
        • Thokala P
        • et al.
        Constrained optimization methods in health services research-an introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force.
        Value Health. 2017; 20: 310-319
        • Bond K
        • Stiffell R
        • Ollendorf DA.
        Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020; : 1-8
      6. ISPOR. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

        • Altman DG
        • Simera I.
        A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network.
        J R Soc Med. 2016; 109: 67-77
        • Catalá-López F
        • Caulley L
        • Ridao M
        • et al.
        Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis.
        BMJ Open. 2020; 10e034463
      7. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research.
        Gastroenterology. 2004; 126: S124-S128