Skip to main content

Table 4 Assessment of economic evaluations based on CHEERS criteria (inputs to economic evaluation: costs and outcomes)

From: Cost-effectiveness of pain management services for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of published studies

Study IDCurrency/yearDirect costIndirect costsTime horizonHealth outcomeValuation of preference outcomes
Skouen 2002 [19]Norwegian Krone, price of clinic in 1996, no inflationTop down approachYes26 monthsReturn to workNA (utilities were not collected)
Rivero-Arias 2005 [22]2002–2003 GBP inflated to base year (2005)Bottom up approachYes. costing total hours worked by each patient24 monthsReturn to paid employment, total hours worked, utility using EQ. 5DSocial tariff from representative sample of UK population
Smeets 2009 [21]2003 EurosTop-down approach and costing diariesYes, using human capital approach12 monthsDisability using RMDQ,utility using EQ. 5DAUC, population and techniques were not described
Lambeek 2010 [20]Index year 2007 (Euro converted to GBP)Bottom up approachYes, using human capital approach12 monthsReturn to work, utilities using EQ. 5DDutch tariff however no description of population or methods used
Johnsen 2014 [18]Norwegian Krone with 2006 as a base year. Costs were adjusted for inflation into 2012 prices and converted to Euros using the rate 1 € = 6.7 Kr2006Top-down approach and costing diariesYes, using human capital approach24 monthsUtilities using EQ. 5D and SF-6DQALY was estimated as AUC using trapezoidal method. Population and techniques were not addressed.
  1. AUC area under the curve, CE cost effectiveness, CB cost benefit, CU cost utility, QALY quality adjusted life years, EQ. 5D EuroQol 5 dimensions, SF-6D Short Form 6 dimension, GBP British pound, NA not applicable