Appendix

SEARCH QUERY:

(spinal OR SCI OR SCIs OR neurogenic OR bladder OR urinary OR urethral OR

dysfunction)

AND

(hydrophilic OR LoFric OR coated OR POBE OR polyolefin based elastomer OR

polyolefin-based elastomer OR PVC free OR PVC-free OR Speedicath OR Easicath)

AND

(standard OR conventional OR plastic OR polyethylene OR PVC OR polyvinyl OR

nonhydrophilic OR non hydrophilic OR non-hydrophilic OR non coated OR non-coated)

AND

(intermittent OR catheter*)

AND

(urinary tract infection* OR UTI OR UTIs OR infection* OR urethral trauma OR stricture*

OR hematuria OR quality of life OR QOL OR QALY OR QALYs)
 PRISMA Flow Diagram
Identification

Records identified through Additional records identified

database searching through other sources
(n = 561) (n = 7)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 381)
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 381) (n = 343)

Full-text articles excluded, with

Full-text articles assessed reasons (n = 33):
for eligibility 8 reviews, 8 other comparisons,
Eligibility

(n = 38) 2 not clinical studies, 1

language, 5 different outcomes,
2 other procedures, 1 other
population, 1 cost-effectiveness
Studies included in study, 5 no SCI patients
qualitative synthesis
(n = 5)
Included

Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(meta-analyses)
(n = 4)

From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards – CHEERS Checklist 1

CHEERS Checklist
Items to include when reporting economic evaluations of health interventions

The ISPOR CHEERS Task Force Report, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting
Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations
Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force, provides examples and further discussion of
the 24-item CHEERS Checklist and the CHEERS Statement. It may be accessed via the Value in Health or
via the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines – CHEERS: Good Reporting Practices
webpage: http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp

Section/item Item Recommendation Reported

No on page No/
line No
Title and abstract
Title 1 Identify the study as an economic evaluation or use more
specific terms such as “cost-effectiveness analysis”, and
page 1
describe the interventions compared.
Abstract 2 Provide a structured summary of objectives, perspective,
setting, methods (including study design and inputs), results
(including base case and uncertainty analyses), and
pages 2-3
conclusions.
Introduction
Background and 3 Provide an explicit statement of the broader context for the
objectives study.
Present the study question and its relevance for health policy or
from page 4
practice decisions.
Methods
Target population and 4 Describe characteristics of the base case population and
from page 6
subgroups subgroups analysed, including why they were chosen.
Setting and location 5 State relevant aspects of the system(s) in which the decision(s)
need(s) to be made. page 13
Study perspective 6 Describe the perspective of the study and relate this to the
costs being evaluated. page 13
Comparators 7 Describe the interventions or strategies being compared and
page 6
state why they were chosen.
Time horizon 8 State the time horizon(s) over which costs and consequences
are being evaluated and say why appropriate. page 9
Discount rate 9 Report the choice of discount rate(s) used for costs and
outcomes and say why appropriate. page 15
Choice of health 10 Describe what outcomes were used as the measure(s) of
outcomes benefit in the evaluation and their relevance for the type of
page 9
analysis performed.
Measurement of 11a Single study-based estimates: Describe fully the design
effectiveness features of the single effectiveness study and why the single
study was a sufficient source of clinical effectiveness data.
 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards – CHEERS Checklist 2

11b Synthesis-based estimates: Describe fully the methods used for

identification of included studies and synthesis of clinical
pages 6-9
effectiveness data.
Measurement and 12 If applicable, describe the population and methods used to
valuation of preference elicit preferences for outcomes.
pages 14-15
based outcomes
Estimating resources 13a Single study-based economic evaluation: Describe approaches
and costs used to estimate resource use associated with the alternative
interventions. Describe primary or secondary research methods
for valuing each resource item in terms of its unit cost.
Describe any adjustments made to approximate to opportunity
costs.
13b Model-based economic evaluation: Describe approaches and
data sources used to estimate resource use associated with
model health states. Describe primary or secondary research
methods for valuing each resource item in terms of its unit
cost. Describe any adjustments made to approximate to
pages 13-14
opportunity costs.
Currency, price date, 14 Report the dates of the estimated resource quantities and unit
and conversion costs. Describe methods for adjusting estimated unit costs to
the year of reported costs if necessary. Describe methods for
converting costs into a common currency base and the
page 13
exchange rate.
Choice of model 15 Describe and give reasons for the specific type of decision-
analytical model used. Providing a figure to show model
pages 9-10
structure is strongly recommended.
Assumptions 16 Describe all structural or other assumptions underpinning the
pages 9-15
decision-analytical model.
Analytical methods 17 Describe all analytical methods supporting the evaluation. This
could include methods for dealing with skewed, missing, or
censored data; extrapolation methods; methods for pooling
data; approaches to validate or make adjustments (such as half
cycle corrections) to a model; and methods for handling
pages 6-9, 15
population heterogeneity and uncertainty.
Results
Study parameters 18 Report the values, ranges, references, and, if used, probability
distributions for all parameters. Report reasons or sources for
distributions used to represent uncertainty where appropriate.
Providing a table to show the input values is strongly page 15 and
recommended. Suppl. Table 4
Incremental costs and 19 For each intervention, report mean values for the main
outcomes categories of estimated costs and outcomes of interest, as well
as mean differences between the comparator groups. If
pages 17-18
applicable, report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
Characterising 20a Single study-based economic evaluation: Describe the effects
uncertainty of sampling uncertainty for the estimated incremental cost and
incremental effectiveness parameters, together with the impact
 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards – CHEERS Checklist 3

of methodological assumptions (such as discount rate, study

perspective).
20b Model-based economic evaluation: Describe the effects on the
results of uncertainty for all input parameters, and uncertainty
related to the structure of the model and assumptions. pages 18-20
Characterising 21 If applicable, report differences in costs, outcomes, or cost-
heterogeneity effectiveness that can be explained by variations between
subgroups of patients with different baseline characteristics or
other observed variability in effects that are not reducible by
more information.
Discussion
Study findings, 22 Summarise key study findings and describe how they support
limitations, the conclusions reached. Discuss limitations and the
generalisability, and generalisability of the findings and how the findings fit with
pages 23-26
current knowledge current knowledge.
Other
Source of funding 23 Describe how the study was funded and the role of the funder
in the identification, design, conduct, and reporting of the
page 27
analysis. Describe other non-monetary sources of support.
Conflicts of interest 24 Describe any potential for conflict of interest of study
contributors in accordance with journal policy. In the absence
of a journal policy, we recommend authors comply with
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
recommendations.

For consistency, the CHEERS Statement checklist format is based on the format of the CONSORT
statement checklist

The ISPOR CHEERS Task Force Report provides examples and further discussion of the 24-item
CHEERS Checklist and the CHEERS Statement. It may be accessed via the Value in Health link or via the
ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines – CHEERS: Good Reporting Practices
webpage: http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp

The citation for the CHEERS Task Force Report is:

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards
(CHEERS)—Explanation and elaboration: A report of the ISPOR health economic evaluations publication
guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 2013;16:231-50.