From: Are multidisciplinary teams in secondary care cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature

CHEC-list quality criteria | Number of studies fulfilling criterion |
---|---|

1. Is the study population clearly described? | 12 |

2. Are competing alternatives clearly described? | 14 |

3. Is a well-defined research question posed in answerable form? | 15 |

4. Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective? | 15 |

5. Is the chosen time horizon appropriate in order to include relevant costs and consequences? | 15 |

6. Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate? | 3 |

7. Are all important and relevant costs for each alternative identified? | 0 |

8. Are all costs measured appropriately in physical units? | 11 |

9. Are costs valued appropriately? | 4 |

10. Are all important and relevant outcomes for each alternative identified? | 15 |

11. Are all outcomes measured appropriately? | 13 |

12. Are outcomes valued appropriately? | 13 |

13. Is an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed? | 3 |

14. Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately? | 2 |

15. Are all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis? | 3 |

16. Do the conclusions follow from the data reported? | 9 |

17. Does the study discuss the generalizability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? | 2 |

18. Does the article indicate there is no potential conflict of interest of study researcher(s) and funder(s)? | 4 |

19. Are ethical and distributional issues discussed appropriately? | 0 |