Table 4 Assessment of economic evaluations based on CHEERS criteria (inputs to economic evaluation: costs and outcomes)
Study ID | Currency/year | Direct cost | Indirect costs | Time horizon | Health outcome | Valuation of preference outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Skouen 2002 [19] | Norwegian Krone, price of clinic in 1996, no inflation | Top down approach | Yes | 26 months | Return to work | NA (utilities were not collected) |
Rivero-Arias 2005 [22] | 2002–2003 GBP inflated to base year (2005) | Bottom up approach | Yes. costing total hours worked by each patient | 24 months | Return to paid employment, total hours worked, utility using EQ. 5D | Social tariff from representative sample of UK population |
Smeets 2009 [21] | 2003 Euros | Top-down approach and costing diaries | Yes, using human capital approach | 12 months | Disability using RMDQ,utility using EQ. 5D | AUC, population and techniques were not described |
Lambeek 2010 [20] | Index year 2007 (Euro converted to GBP) | Bottom up approach | Yes, using human capital approach | 12 months | Return to work, utilities using EQ. 5D | Dutch 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 Kr2006 | Top-down approach and costing diaries | Yes, using human capital approach | 24 months | Utilities using EQ. 5D and SF-6D | QALY was estimated as AUC using trapezoidal method. Population and techniques were not addressed. |