↓ Skip to main content

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-11-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Don Husereau, Michael Drummond, Stavros Petrou, Chris Carswell, David Moher, Dan Greenberg, Federico Augustovski, Andrew H Briggs, Josephine Mauskopf, Elizabeth Loder

Abstract

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Unknown 125 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Lecturer 21 16%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Other 8 6%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 9%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 34 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2013.
All research outputs
#6,293,272
of 8,674,002 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#105
of 151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,149
of 119,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,674,002 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 119,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.