Cited by 319Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDelphi Technique in Research

Indirect Treatment Comparison/Network Meta-Analysis Study Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility to Inform Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report

Open access
Jansen, Jeroen P., Trikalinos, Thomas, Cappelleri, Joseph C., Daw, Jessica, Andes, Sherry, Eldessouki, Randa, Salanti, Georgia·2014·Value in Health

Abstract

Despite the great realized or potential value of network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial evidence to inform health care decision making, many decision makers might not be familiar with these techniques. The Task Force developed a consensus-based 26-item questionnaire to help decision makers assess the relevance and credibility of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to help inform health care decision making. The relevance domain of the questionnaire (4 questions) calls for assessments about the applicability of network meta-analysis results to the setting of interest to the decision maker. The remaining 22 questions belong to an overall credibility domain and pertain to assessments about whether the network meta-analysis results provide a valid answer to the question they are designed to answer by examining 1) the used evidence base, 2) analysis methods, 3) reporting quality and transparency, 4) interpretation of findings, and 5) conflicts of interest. The questionnaire aims to help readers of network meta-analysis opine about their confidence in the credibility and applicability of the results of a network meta-analysis, and help make decision makers aware of the subtleties involved in the analysis of networks of randomized trial evidence. It is anticipated that user feedback will permit periodic evaluation and modification of the questionnaire.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jansen, J. P., Trikalinos, T., Cappelleri, J. C., Daw, J., Andes, S., Eldessouki, R., & Salanti, G.
Affiliations
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • UPMC Health System (US)
  • Fayoum University (EG)
  • University of Ioannina (GR)
Corresponding author
Jansen, Jeroen P.
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
157-173
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2035613798
Cited by
319
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 10
FWCI
34.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
network meta-analysis, indirect treatment comparison, healthcare decision-making, credibility assessment, applicability, reporting quality, transparency, conflicts of interest, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Advisory Committees, Internationality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review