Quality scores for criteria of the CHEC list; percentage of fulfilment included economic evaluations focused on prevention or treatment and on return to work (RTW), respectively
| Prevention/treatment | Return to work | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lo Sasso et al25 | Bittman et al26 | Wang et al6 | Vogt et al27 | Subtotal (% ful-filment) | Van Oostrom et al28 | Brouwers et al29 | Leon et al30 | Rebergen et al31 | Schene et al32 | Uegaki et al33 | Subtotal (% fulfilment) | Total (% fulfilment) | |
| 1. Is the study population clearly described? | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 83 | 60 |
| 2. Are competing alternatives clearly described? | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 67 | 60 |
| 3. Is a well-defined research question posed in answerable form? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 70 |
| 4. Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 75 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 83 | 80 |
| 5. Is the chosen time horizon appropriate in order to include relevant costs and consequences? | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 75 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 90 |
| 6. Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 50 | 50 |
| 7. Are all important and relevant costs for each alternative identified? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 80 |
| 8. Are all costs measured appropriately in physical units? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 67 | 40 |
| 9. Are costs valued appropriately? | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 50 | 40 |
| 10. Are all important and relevant outcomes for each alternative identified? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 75 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 90 |
| 11. Are all outcomes measured appropriately? | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 50 | 50 |
| 12. Are outcomes valued appropriately? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 67 | 60 |
| 13. Is an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 83 | 70 |
| 14. Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 67 | 60 |
| 15. Are all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 83 | 70 |
| 16. Do the conclusions follow from the data reported? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 67 | 60 |
| 17. Does the study discuss the generalisability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 40 |
| 18. Does the article indicate that there is no potential conflict of interest of study researcher(s) and funder(s)? | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 75 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 83 | 80 |
| 19. Are ethical and distributional issues discussed appropriately? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total (% fulfilment) | 79 | 26 | 58 | 16 | 45 | 95 | 63 | 37 | 95 | 53 | 84 | 71 | 61 |
0, no; 1, yes; CHEC, Consensus Health Economic Criteria.