OBJECTIVES: The cost of cancer treatments is increasing faster than the consumer price index. Therefore, generation and reporting of quality pharmacoeconomic studies is important to determine the value of treatments. We assessed the reporting quality of published pharmacoeconomic studies of hematologic malignancies using the widely accepted 24-item CHEERS checklist.

METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar using combinations of keywords for cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-minimization, and hematologic malignancies. Original studies published in English language during last 15 years (2003-2017) were included and assessed by two reviewers, conflicts were resolved by a third. Descriptive statistics was applied to identify the under-reported items (reported by ≤50% studies). Studies that had reported ≥80% of the items were considered high quality (HQ). The chi square test was used to estimate the difference in frequency of HQ studies before and after the publication of the CHEERS (2013).

RESULTS: Out of 173 retrieved studies, 107 (61.8%) met the inclusion criteria, and 58 (54.21%) were HQ. Items such as characterizing uncertainty (36, 33.64%); currency, price date, and conversion (41, 38.32%); analytical methods (41, 38.32%); study findings, limitations, generalizability, and current knowledge (46, 42.99%); measurement and valuation of preference based outcomes (53, 49.53%) were under-reported. There was no statistical difference between the frequencies of HQ studies reported prior and postpublication of the CHEERS (p=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS: This analysis did not suggest any difference in reporting quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in hematologic malignancies before and after the publication of the CHEERS. Most of the under-reported items were specific to pahramcoeconomic studies. Effective implementation of the CHEERS may require specialized training of researchers involved in reporting of pharmacoeconomic studies.