Cost Effectiveness of Bosentan for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review

Table 2

Quality of the economic evaluations (as assessed by the CHEERS statement).

Item No.	Section/item	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
		Highland KB et al. [12]	Garin MC et al. [13]	Coyle K et al. [14]	Dranitsaris G et al. [15]	Wlodarczyk JH et al. [16]	Stevenson MD et al. [17]	Fan et al. [18]	Barbieri M et al. [19]
1	Title	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
2	Abstract	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
3	Background and objectives	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
4	Target population and subgroups	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
5	Setting and location	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
6	Study perspective	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1
7	Comparators	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
8	Time horizon	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
9	Discount rate	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0
10	Choice of health outcomes	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
11	Measurement of effectiveness	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
12	Measurement and valuation of preference-based outcomes	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
13	Estimating resources and costs	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
14	Currency, price date, and conversion	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
15	Choice of model	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
16	Assumptions	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
17	Analytical methods	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
18	Study parameters	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
19	Incremental costs and outcomes	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
20	Characterizing uncertainty	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
21	Characterizing heterogeneity	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
22	Study findings, limitations, generalizability, and current knowledge	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
23	Source of funding	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1
24	Conflicts of interest	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1
Overall quality	Moderate	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Moderate	Good

Note. “1” meets the quality assessment criteria; “0” does not fully conform to the quality assessment criteria; CHEERS: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.