Table 2 Quality appraisal with the CHEC-list.
Augustovski (2018) | Zhang (2021) | Chen (2016) | Cunningham (2022) | Derakhshandeh-Rishehri (2022) | Faleh Al-Mutairi (2021) | Gilmer (2019) | Islam (2020) | Li (2018) | Li (2021) | McManus (2021) | Tsuji (2020) | Wong (2016) | Zhang (2020) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study population | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 79% |
Competing alternatives | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 43% |
Research question | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36% |
Study design | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 86% |
Time horizon | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 43% |
Perspective | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7% |
Costs: identification | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 71% |
Costs: measurement | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 50% |
Costs: value | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 43% |
Outcomes: identification | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
Outcomes: measurement | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 92% |
Outcomes: value | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 77% |
Incremental analysis | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
Discounted | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 100% |
Sensitivity analysis | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43% |
Conclusions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 71% |
Generalizability | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 71% |
No conflict of interest | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 71% |
Ethics | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 50% |
Quality score (%) | 68 | 79 | 40 | 63 | 42 | 56 | 74 | 50 | 94 | 61 | 67 | 58 | 63 | 67 |
