Table 1 Checklist for quality of economic evaluations
From: Economic analyses of breast cancer control in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review
Item | Fully | Partial | Not at all | Not appropriate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Original checklist | 2 points | 1 point | 0 points | NA |
Study design | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 1. The research question is stated | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 2. The economic importance of the research question is stated | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 3. The viewpoint(s) of the analysis are clearly stated and justified (relating to a particular decision-making context) | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 4. The rationale(s) for choosing the alternative programs or interventions which are compared is stated | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 5. The alternatives being compared are clearly described | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 6. All relevant alternatives are included | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 7. The choice of economic evaluation is justified in relation to the questions addressed | □ | □ | □ | □ |
Effectiveness estimation | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 8. The primary outcome measure for the economic evaluation is clearly stated | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 9. The source(s) of effectiveness estimates used is clearly stated | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 10. Details of the design and results of the effectiveness study are given (if based on a single study) | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 11. Details of the methods of synthesis or meta-analysis of estimates are given (if based on multiple studies) | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 12. Data and methods used to value health states and other benefits are stated and justified. | □ | □ | □ | □ |
Cost estimation | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 14. Indirect non-healthcare costs are included or discussed | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 15. Quantities of resources are reported separately from their unit costs | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 16. Methods for the estimation of quantities and unit costs are described and justified. | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 17. Details of currency of price adjustments for inflation or currency conversion are given | □ | □ | □ | □ |
Analysis | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 18. Time horizon of costs and benefits are stated | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 18. Details of any model used are given | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 19. The choice of model used and the key parameters on which it is based are justified | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 20. The discount rate(s) is stated | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 21. The choice of rate(s) is justified | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 22. Details of statistical tests and confidence intervals are given for stochastic data | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 23. Sensitivity analysis is performed:  2) Probabilistic (bootstrap/Monte Carlo)  1) Deterministic (one way /multiple way) | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 24. The choice of variables in sensitivity analysis and the range over which these variables are varied is justified | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 25. Incremental analysis is performed and reported | □ | □ | □ | □ |
Interpretation of results | â–¡ | â–¡ | â–¡ | â–¡ |
 26. Major outcomes are presented in a disaggregated as well as aggregated form | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 27. The answer to the study question is given | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 28. Relevant alternatives are compared | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 29. Conclusions follow from the data reported | □ | □ | □ | □ |
 30. Conclusions are accompanied by the appropriate caveats such as generalizability, equity, feasibility, and implementation | □ | □ | □ | □ |