OBJECTIVES:

This presentation will comprise a quantitative comparison of six most frequently used checklists including BMJ, CHEC, Drummond, QHES, CHEERS and Philip’s checklist , focusing on the issue concerning the methodological quality versus reporting quality and whether the level of experience of the reviewers impact on choosing checklists and assessing quality assessment.

METHODS:

Reviewers were recruited through publicly available email address invitations or via postings on websites and social media. Three reviewers with different levels of experience will independently assess one study using six identical checklists. Reviewers also ranked selected checklist items according to their perceived importance including ease of use, completeness and applicability.

RESULTS:

34 health economists were recruited and have worked in different heath areas. For purpose of using the checklist, the majority of participants acknowledged the existing checklists they used before for both methodological quality and reporting quality even with CHEERs and BMJ checklists that are used for reporting quality only. Regarding ease of use of checklists, CHEC was rate at the highest followed by CHEERs while Phillip’s checklist was rated lowest followed by QHES. Regarding the comprehensiveness of the checklists, CHEERS and Drummond checklist were rated highest compared to QHES and CHEC which were rated lowest. In terms of applicability of the checklists, participant rated similarly across the checklists with the highest for CHEERs and BMJ and the lowest for QHES and Phillip’s checklist. While participants with no prior work experience rated CHEC as the highest ease of use and applicability while participants with over 5 years put CHEERs at first in these criteria.

CONCLUSIONS:

This is the first empirical evidence that can provide a starting point for future research that either may guide user’s selection of the most appropriate checklist for their particular purpose.