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, and 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 healthcare, 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

Comparison of echocardiographic methods for calculating left ventricular mass in elite rugby football league athletes and the impact on chamber geometry

Background: Recommendations for the echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular (LV) mass in the athlete suggest the use of the linear method using a two-tiered classification system (2TC). The aims of this study were to compare the linear method and the area-length (A-L) method for LV mass in elite rugby football league (RFL) athletes and to establish how any differences impact the classification of LV geometry using 2TC and four-tier (4TC) classification systems. Methods: Two hundred and twenty (220) male RFL athletes aged 25 ± 5 (14–34 years) were recruited. All athletes underwent echocardiography and LV mass was calculated by the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) corrected Linear equation (2D) and the A-L method. Left ventricular mass Index (LVMi) was used with relative wall thickness to determine geometry in the 2TC and with concentricity and LV end diastolic volume index for the 4TC. Method specific recommended cut-offs were utilised. Results: Higher values of absolute (197 ± 34 vs. 181 ± 34 g; p < 0.0001) and indexed (92 ± 13 vs. 85 ± 13 g/m2; p < 0.0001) measures of LV mass were obtained from A-L compared to the linear method. Normal LV geometry was demonstrated in 98.2% and 80% of athletes whilst eccentric hypertrophy in 1.4% and 19.5% for linear and A-L respectively. Both methods provided 0.5% as having concentric remodelling and 0% as having concentric hypertrophy. Allocation to the 4TC resulted in 97% and 80% with normal geometry, 0% and 8.6% with eccentric dilated hypertrophy, 0% and 7.7% with eccentric non-dilated hypertrophy, 1.4% and 0.5% with concentric remodelling and 1.4% and 3% with concentric non-dilated hypertrophy for linear and A-L methods respectively. No participants had concentric dilated hypertrophy from either methods. Conclusion: The linear and A-L method for calculation of LV mass in RFL athletes are not interchangeable with significantly higher values obtained using A-L method impacting on geometry classification. More athletes present with eccentric hypertrophy using 2TC and eccentric dilated/non-dilated using 4TC. Further studies should be aimed at establishing the association of A-L methods of LV mass and application of the 4TC to the multi-factorial demographics of the athlete

The impact of image and performance enhancing drugs on bi-ventricular structure and function in strength-trained athletes and the association to fat-free mass

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institute of Health Research Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement Background Image and performance enhancing drugs (IPED) cause cardiac enlargement and dysfunction. Previous work has not assessed impact of user status (current [CU] vs. past [PU]) or allometric scaling cardiac dimensions for individual differences in fat-free mass (FFM). Purpose To investigate CU and PU of IPED and allometric scaling on LV and RV remodeling in strength-trained athletes. Methods Thirty-four (29 ± 6 years; 82% male) strength-trained athletes were recruited. Fourteen were CU, 9 PU and 11 non-users (NU) of IPEDs.  Participants underwent bioelectric impedance body composition analysis, IPED and training questionnaire and 2D echocardiography with strain imaging. All structural data was allometrically scaled to FFM according to the laws of geometric similarity. Results CU and PU had significantly higher FFM compared to NU (82.4 ± 10.1 kg vs. 72.0 ± 6.3 kg vs. 58.2 ± 14.0 kg). Absolute values of all RV and LV size were larger between CU and NU. LV mean wall thickness (MWT) was larger in CU compared to PU but there were no differences between PU and NU. Allometric scaling eliminated all differences with exception of LV mass and LVMWT. LVEF was significantly lower in CU and PU compared to NU (55 ± 3 vs. 57 ± 4 vs. 61 ± 4) whilst LV GLS was lower in CU compared to PU and NU and LV GCS was lower in CU compared to NU but not PU. There was no significant difference between groups for RV functional indices. Conclusion  Strength-trained athletes currently using IPEDs have bi-ventricular enlargement as well as reduced LV function. Allometric scaling highlights that increased size is partially associated with a larger FFM, with exception of LVMWT which is independently increased through IPED use. PUs demonstrate reverse structural remodeling whilst functional differences partially remain. CU PU NU RVD1 (mm) 45 ± 5* 43 ± 6 37 ± 6 Scaled RVD1 (mm/kg^0.33) 10.5 ± 0.9 10.4 ± 1.5 9.7 ± 1.0 LVd (mm) 58 ± 7* 55 ± 4 50 ± 4 Scaled LVd (mm/kg^0.33) 13.4 ± 1.2 13.3 ± 0.7 13.1 ± 0.6 MWT (mm) 10 ± 1*” 8 ± 1 8 ± 1 Scaled MWT (mm/kg^0.33) 2.3 ± 0.2*” 2.0 ± 0.1 2.0 ± 0.2 LVEDV (ml) 169 ± 42* 135 ± 28 116 ± 28 Scaled LVEDV (ml/kg) 2.0 ± 0.4 1.9 ± 0.3 2.0 ± 0.2 LV Mass (g) 255 ± 85*” 179 ± 30 137 ± 40 LV mass index (g/kg) 3.1 ± 0.8* 2.5 ± 0.3 2.4 ± 0.4 * CU and NU “ CU and PU ^ PU and NU Abstract Figure. Myocardial strain imaging </jats:sec

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

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

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