The financial burden of diabetes-related foot disease in Australia: a systematic review

Frescos, Nicoletta; Stopher, Lucy; Jansen, Shirley; Kaminski, Michelle R.

doi:10.1186/s13047-023-00688-y

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

Table 2 Quality assessment using the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist

From: The financial burden of diabetes-related foot disease in Australia: a systematic review

	Criterion 1	Criterion 2	Criterion 3	Criterion 4	Criterion 5	Criterion 6	Criterion 7	Criterion 8	Criterion 9	Criterion 10
	Title identified as economic evaluation	Structured abstract	Intro Background and objectives	Health economic analysis plan	Study population	Setting and location	Comparators	Study perspective	Time horizon	Discount rate
Cheng et al (2017) [22]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	≠	✓	✓	✓	✓
Graves and Zheng (2014) [25]	✓	✓	✓	✓	≠	✓	N/A	×	×	×
Zhang et al (2023) [26]	≠	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
	Criterion 11	Criterion 12	Criterion 13	Criterion 14	Criterion 15	Criterion 16	Criterion 17	Criterion 18	Criterion 19	Criterion 20
	Selection of outcomes	Measurement of outcomes	Valuation of outcomes	Measurement and valuation of resources and costs	Currency, price date and conversions	Rationale and description of model	Analytics and assumptions	Characterising heterogeneity	Characterising distributional effects	Characterising uncertainty
Cheng et al (2017) [22]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	×	≠	✓
Graves and Zheng (2014) [25]	N/A	N/A	N/A	✓	✓	✓	≠	×	×	≠
Zhang et al (2023) [26]	✓	✓	✓	N/A	✓	✓	✓	N/A	✓	✓
	Criterion 21	Criterion 22	Criterion 23	Criterion 24	Criterion 25	Criterion 26	Criterion 27	Criterion 28	Total score (%)	Rating
	Approach to engagement with patients and others affected by study	Study parameters	Summary of main results	Effect of uncertainty	Effect of engagement with patients and others affected by the study	Study findings, limitations, generalisability and current knowledge	Source of funding	Conflict of interest
Cheng et al (2017) [22]	×	✓	✓	✓	×	✓	×	×	22 / 28 (78.6%)	Very good
Graves and Zheng (2014) [25]	×	×	✓	≠	×	✓	×	×	12 / 24 (50.0%)	Poor
Zhang et al (2023) [26]	×	✓	✓	✓	×	✓	✓	✓	23.5 / 26 (90.4%)	Excellent

Note. Criterion met in full = 1-point (represented by ✓), criterion partially met = 0.5-points (represented by ≠), criterion not met = 0-points (represented by ×), not applicable = total score reduced by one-point (represented by N/A). Studies classified as ‘excellent’ quality if scored 85% or higher, ‘very good’ quality if 70–85%, ‘good’ quality if 55–70% and ‘poor’ quality if below 55% [24]

Back to article page

ISSN: 1757-1146

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com