Skip to main content

Table 4 Critical appraisal of the quality of the economic evaluation (CHEC-extended scores)

From: Systematic literature review of the economic burden of spinal muscular atrophy and economic evaluations of treatments

Authors CADTH [34] ICER [36] Jalali [32] Malone [33] NCP [37] Zuluaga-Sanchez [35]
1. Is the study population clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1
2. Are competing alternatives clearly described? 1 1 1 1 0.5 1
3. Is a well-defined research question posed in answerable form? 1 1 1 1 1 1
4. Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective? 1 1 1 1 1 1
5. Is the chosen time horizon appropriate in order to include relevant costs and consequences? 1 1 1 1 1 1
6. Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate? 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1
7. Are all important and relevant costs for each alternative identified? 0 1 1 1 1 1
8. Are all costs measured appropriately in physical units? 0 1 1 1 0 1
9. Are costs valued appropriately? 0 0.5 1 1 0 1
10. Are all important and relevant outcomes for each alternative identified? 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. Are all outcomes measured appropriately? 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. Are outcomes valued appropriately? 1 1 0 1 1 1
13. Is an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed? 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately? 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1
15. Are all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis? 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
16. Do the conclusions follow from the data reported? 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. Does the study discuss the generalizability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? 0 1 0 0 0 0.5
18. Does the article indicate that there is no potential conflict of interest of study researcher(s) and funder(s)? 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. Are ethical and distributional issues discussed appropriately? 0 0 0.5 0 0 0
Total % 68.4% 89.5% 81.6% 81.6% 68.4% 89.5%