CHEC-list (Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list)
The CHEC-list is a checklist developed by international experts to assess the methodological quality of economic evaluations, especially within systematic reviews. It helps ensure that studies are transparent, reliable, and comparable.
At a glance
Use when
Conducting systematic reviews that include economic evaluations; assessing the methodological rigor of cost-effectiveness or cost-utility studies
Avoid when
Evaluating non-economic aspects of health technologies; when a rapid or high-level screening is sufficient without detailed methodological appraisal
Inputs
Full economic evaluation studies, particularly those included in systematic reviews
Outputs
Quality assessment score or judgment based on presence/absence of methodological criteria
How it works
The CHEC-list was developed through a three-round Delphi process involving 23 international experts. It consists of a standardized set of criteria, each formulated as a yes/no question, to evaluate the methodological quality of economic evaluations. An operationalization guide is provided to ensure consistent interpretation and application. The list serves as a minimum standard in systematic reviews.
- HTA domains
- Clinical Effectiveness, Costs & Economic Evaluation
- Assumptions
- The checklist assumes that adherence to methodological standards improves study quality and that a standardized approach enhances comparability across reviews
- Strengths
- Developed via expert consensus using Delphi method; provides clear, operationalized criteria; supports transparency and comparability in economic evaluations
- Limitations
- Limited to methodological quality and does not assess clinical relevance or real-world applicability; may require adaptation for specific contexts or types of economic evaluations
- Also known as
- CHEC-list, Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list
Questions this answers
- › Does the economic evaluation use appropriate study design and methods?
- › Is the perspective of the analysis clearly stated?
- › Are the costs and outcomes adequately measured and valued?
- › Is there sufficient justification for the choice of model or analytical method?
- › Are the results robust to sensitivity analyses?
- › Are conflicts of interest disclosed?
References & sources
Similar by meaning
Beta record. Generated from the primary source via AI extraction and independent audit, pending final human review.