Background: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. Objective: The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. Methods: The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. Results: Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation.

Purpose Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer. Long-term daily subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin has been standard treatment for such patients. The purpose of this study was to assess if an oral factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, would offer an alternative treatment for VTE in patients with cancer. Patient and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, pilot trial in the United Kingdom, patients with active cancer who had symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), incidental PE, or symptomatic lower-extremity proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were recruited. Allocation was to dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1, then 150 IU/kg daily for months 2-6) or rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, then 20 mg once daily for a total of 6 months). The primary outcome was VTE recurrence over 6 months. Safety was assessed by major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB). A sample size of 400 patients would provide estimates of VTE recurrence to within ± 4.5%, assuming a VTE recurrence rate at 6 months of 10%. Results A total of 203 patients were randomly assigned to each group, 58% of whom had metastases. Twenty-six patients experienced recurrent VTE (dalteparin, n = 18; rivaroxaban, n = 8). The 6-month cumulative VTE recurrence rate was 11% (95% CI, 7% to 16%) with dalteparin and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) with rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.99). The 6-month cumulative rate of major bleeding was 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for dalteparin and 6% (95% CI, 3% to 11%) for rivaroxaban (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 4.96). Corresponding rates of CRNMB were 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) and 13% (95% CI, 9% to 19%), respectively (HR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.69). Conclusion Rivaroxaban was associated with relatively low VTE recurrence but higher CRNMB compared with dalteparin.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being copublished across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.Health economic evaluations are conducted to inform resource allocation decisions. Economic evaluation has been defined as ''the comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both their costs and their consequences.'' [1] All economic evaluations assess costs, but approaches to measuring and valuing the consequences of health interventions may differ (see Box). Economic evaluations have been widely applied in health policy, including the assessment of prevention programmes (such as vaccination, screening, and health promotion), diagnostics, treatment interventions (such as drugs and surgical procedures), organisation of care, and rehabilitation. Economic evaluations are increasingly being used for decision making and are an important component of programmes for health technology assessment internationally [2]. Reporting Challenges and Shortcomings in Health Economic EvaluationsCompared with clinical studies, which report the consequences of an intervention only, economic evaluations require more reporting space for additional items, such as resource use, costs, preference related information, and cost effectiveness results. This creates challenges for editors, reviewers, and those who wish to scrutinise a study's findings [3]. There is evidence that the quality of reporting of economic evaluations varies widely and could potentially benefit from improved quality assurance mechanisms [4,5].Wi...

Miscarriage is generally defined as the loss of a pregnancy before viability. An estimated 23 million miscarriages occur every year worldwide, translating to 44 pregnancy losses each minute. The pooled risk of miscarriage is 15•3% (95% CI: 12•5% -18•7%) of all recognised pregnancies. The population prevalence of women with one miscarriage is 10•8% (95% CI 10•3% -11•4%), two miscarriages is 1•9% (95% CI 1•8% -2•1%) and three or more miscarriages is 0•7% (0•5% -0•8%).Risk factors for miscarriage include very young or older female age, older male age, very low or very high body mass index, black ethnicity, previous miscarriages, smoking, alcohol, stress levels, night shift working, air pollution and exposure to pesticides. The consequences of miscarriage are both physical, such as bleeding or infection, and psychological.Psychological consequences include increases in the risk of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide. Miscarriage, and especially recurrent miscarriage, is also a sentinel risk marker for obstetric complications, including preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, placental abruption and stillbirth in future pregnancies, and a predictor of longer-term health problems, such as cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism.The costs of miscarriage affect individuals, healthcare systems and society at large. The short-term national economic cost of miscarriage is estimated to be £471 million per year in the United Kingdom. As recurrent miscarriage is a sentinel marker for various obstetric risks in future pregnancies, women should receive care in pre-conception and high-risk obstetric clinics. As psychological morbidity is common after pregnancy loss, effective screening instruments and treatment options for mental health consequences of miscarriage need to be available. We recommend that miscarriage data are gathered and reported to facilitate comparison of rates amongst countries, to accelerate research, and to improve patient care and policy development.