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

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%