Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Happy New Year from the Editor

Dear readers, advisors, authors, editors, and peer reviewers, As we welcome the new year, we look forward to the opportunity to publish new arguments and pose challenging questions about ethical dilemmas in the realm of medicine, science, and technology. Reflecting on the peer review process at this juncture seems especially important considering the bioethics climate and the challenges in doing justice to ethical dilemmas. Unlike scientific peer review, replicability, reliability, and evaluation of methods are largely irrelevant to much of the bioethics literature, except for empirical research. Much like papers published in law, the humanities, and social sciences, peer reviewing contextual arguments in bioethics requires us to evaluate argument validity and ensure that arguments are based on facts or appropriate hypotheticals. The risk that voices are quieted merely because the editorial staff or peer reviewers would choose the other side of an argument is high and requires mitigation steeped in serious processes built into the peer review system. It is especially important to hear diverse views that represent many points along a continuum during polarized times. The papers that offer conceptual arguments that we tend to publish at Voices in Bioethics call for an examination of logic and argument foremost, with a special emphasis on which conclusions are drawn from the premises supplied. At Voices in Bioethics, the peer review process aims to be inclusive, so we balance our instincts to criticize with our goal to accept as many papers that meet our guidelines as possible. We welcome new arguments, especially ones that highlight overlooked viewpoints, considerations, or stakeholders. We acknowledge how many great ideas result from people who speak English as a second or third language, or who do not use English at all. All of those affected by or who observe an ethical dilemma are welcome to submit their ethics arguments surrounding health care, technology, the environment, and the broader sciences. We are happy to read papers by those outside of bioethics and those with any level of education. We use the peer review questions about mechanics only to inform editors of what the process might entail. We do not accept or reject based on mechanics or style alone. The nature of many bioethics journals is to publish papers that may reflect the bioethics status quo or apply common bioethical frameworks to new problems. In addition to that, we try to showcase new ways of thinking and additional considerations. After all, publishing is not about publishing papers that mimic older well-cited articles or that apply only those frameworks learned in the classroom. It is about giving voice and contributing to an open access ecosystem where new and old ideas coexist, their worth measured not in hits or likes, but in their contribution to ethical analysis. Wishing a happy new year to our advisors, editors, peer reviewers, authors, and readers.

COVID-19 data are messy: analytic methods for rigorous impact analyses with imperfect data

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an avalanche of scientific studies, drawing on many different types of data. However, studies addressing the effectiveness of government actions against COVID-19, especially non-pharmaceutical interventions, often exhibit data problems that threaten the validity of their results. This review is thus intended to help epidemiologists and other researchers identify a set of data issues that, in our view, must be addressed in order for their work to be credible. We further intend to help journal editors and peer reviewers when evaluating studies, to apprise policy-makers, journalists, and other research consumers about the strengths and weaknesses of published studies, and to inform the wider debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 research. Results To this end, we describe common challenges in the collection, reporting, and use of epidemiologic, policy, and other data, including completeness and representativeness of outcomes data; their comparability over time and among jurisdictions; the adequacy of policy variables and data on intermediate outcomes such as mobility and mask use; and a mismatch between level of intervention and outcome variables. We urge researchers to think critically about potential problems with the COVID-19 data sources over the specific time periods and particular locations they have chosen to analyze, and to choose not only appropriate study designs but also to conduct appropriate checks and sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact(s) of potential threats on study findings. Conclusions In an effort to encourage high quality research, we provide recommendations on how to address the issues we identify. Our first recommendation is for researchers to choose an appropriate design (and the data it requires). This review describes considerations and issues in order to identify the strongest analytical designs and demonstrates how interrupted time-series and comparative longitudinal studies can be particularly useful. Furthermore, we recommend that researchers conduct checks or sensitivity analyses of the results to data source and design choices, which we illustrate. Regardless of the approaches taken, researchers should be explicit about the kind of data problems or other biases that the design choice and sensitivity analyses are addressing.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Peer Advocacy: Expressions of Loyalty in Peer Review

Peer review is the most legitimate form of evaluation in academia, and a pillar of many decisions and processes in education, research, and other areas of life in higher education. Its legitimacy is based on the peer having relevant expertise to make judgements about the evaluand, and on its presumably external and disinterested character. However, in this chapter we identify what we call “peer advocacy”: when peer reviewers take on the role of promoter or advocate for the evaluand, or for any of the stakeholders involved. To explore this phenomenon, we analyse four cases in the context of Swedish higher education, based on documented studies and the authors’ own experiences. The cases are analysed to show how peer advocacy can be attributed not only to the peer reviewers themselves, but also to the evaluation model, conditions, and expectations. With a view to preserving the legitimacy and integrity of peer review, recommendations are made both to those who commission evaluations and to peer reviewers.