1c:I[419806,["/_next/static/chunks/bb923814e1f4d2e9.js","/_next/static/chunks/dd3ee9f5b7716ca6.js","/_next/static/chunks/4204a0ae82542ca8.js","/_next/static/chunks/30036bedc5269936.js","/_next/static/chunks/6e1aa89a642f40be.js","/_next/static/chunks/cd5e572bc3e4eb92.js","/_next/static/chunks/8ffd0b71567920d8.js","/_next/static/chunks/67ea6dfd21f16c5f.js","/_next/static/chunks/24eb4379f68013fd.js","/_next/static/chunks/b8cd775ffdf935bd.js","/_next/static/chunks/983103cd9eb7b428.js","/_next/static/chunks/d4ac9dcf27f6ff52.js","/_next/static/chunks/294b9525248c8e5f.js"],"default"] 1d:T51f,

Objective.

—This article, the third in a 3-part series, describes recommendations for the reporting of cost-effective analyses (CEAs) intended to improve the quality and accessibility of CEA reports.

Participants.

—The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, convened by the US Public Health Service.

Evidence.

—The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, alternative methods, published critiques of CEAs, and criticisms of general CEA methods and reporting practices.

Consensus Process.

—The panel developed recommendations through 21/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists.

Conclusion.

—These recommendations are proposed to enhance the transparency of study methods, assist analysts in providing complete information, and facilitate the presentation of comparable cost-effectiveness results across studies. Adherence to reporting conventions and attention to providing information required to understand and interpret study results will improve the relevance and accessibility of CEAs.1e:T657,

	Year	Citations

References