Skip to main content

Table 3 Number of studies fulfilling each Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list) quality criterion

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