Skip to main content

Table 4 Main characteristics of the four selected HEE quality appraisal instruments

From: A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments

 

QHES instrument[21]

BMJ guidelines[22]

CHEC list[23]

Philips guidelines[24]

Author; year; journal

Chiou et al. 2003; Medical Care

Drummond, Jefferson; 1996; British Medical Journal (BMJ)

Evers et al. 2005; International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Philips et al. 2006; Pharmacoeconomics

Affiliation of authors

Academia and industry

Academia

Academia

Academia

Published in a peer-reviewed journal

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Number of references

35

48

30

22

Purpose

To provide a grading system for assessing the quality of health economic evaluations

To improve the transparency of reporting

To develop a generally accepted criteria list for assessing the methodology of economic evaluation studies in systematic reviews

To identify, review, and consolidate currently available guidelines in order to establish a synthesized and consistent quality assessment framework for decision analytic models

Development process

Selection of criteria from 19 existing guidelines; Use of a conjoint analysis survey of 120 international experts to estimate weights for each criterion

Not specified

Selection of items from 15 existing guidelines; Use of a Delphi panel consisting of 23 international experts to generate the final criteria list

Selection and formulation of items by reviewing and consolidating 15 existing guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modeling in HTA

Time frame

Before, during and after peer review

Before, during, and after peer review

After peer review

Before, during, and after peer review

Target audience

Producers and consumers of economic evaluations

Producers and consumers of economic evaluations

Consumers intending to conduct a systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations

Producers and consumers of model-based economic evaluations

Preferred analytical technique

Full economic evaluations: cost-minimization-, cost-effectiveness-, cost-utility-, cost-benefit-analysis

Full economic evaluations: cost-minimization-, cost-effectiveness-, cost-utility-, cost-benefit-analysis

Full economic evaluations based on clinical trials: cohort studies, case–control studies, randomized controlled clinical trials

Full economic evaluations based on decision-analytic models

Standard reporting format included

16 questions which should be asked when appraising the quality of health economic evaluations

Ten sections under the three headings of study design, data collection, and analysis and interpretation of results: study question, selection of alternatives, form of evaluation, effectiveness data, benefit measurement and valuation, costing, modeling, adjustments for timing of costs and benefits, allowance for uncertainty, and presentation of results

19 questions which should be asked when appraising the quality of health economic evaluations in systematic reviews

15 sections under the three key themes of structure, data, and consistency: statement of decision problem/objective, statement of scope/ perspective, rationale for structure, structural assumptions, strategies/comparators, model type, time horizon, disease states/pathways, cycle length, data identification, pre-model data analysis, data incorporation, assessment of uncertainty, internal consistency, and external consistency

Number of questions/criteria

16

35

19

61

Operationalization of the questions/criteria

Yes/No

Yes/No/Not clear/Not appropriate

Yes/No

Yes/No/Unclear/Not applicable

Use of a quality score

Yes

No

No

No

Assessment instruction

No

Yes

Yes: http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/

Yes

Pilot test of the guideline

Yes: Ofman et al. [31]

Not specified

Yes, but no details given

Yes