The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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 accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Strengths of our study include a comprehensive systematic review methodology that followed the Cochrane Handbook44 and ISPOR12 guidelines, and reported using the PRISMA extension for NMA.13”
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Salanti, G., Ades, A. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016 · Cited by 3,766
Self-citationHow should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd edn
Brix, A. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2004.00347_4.x · Cited by 2,588
Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis
Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Caldwell, D. M., & Ades, A. E. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3767 · Cited by 2,521 · cited 3×
“[32] Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE.”
BackgroundResult
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Caro, 2014, A modeling study questionnaire to assess study relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report, Value Health, 17
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–316 of 316
Spineli, L. M., Kalyvas, C., Yepes-Nuñez, J. J., García-Sierra, A. M., Rivera-Pinzón, D. C., Seide, S. E., & Papadimitropoulou, K. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26692672
Lunny, C., Veroniki, A.-A., Higgins, J. P. T., Dias, S., Hutton, B., Wright, J. M., White, I. R., Whiting, P., & Tricco, A. C. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24993697
Daly, C., Mbuagbaw, L., Thabane, L., Straus, S. E., & Hamid, J. S. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13161369
Daly, C., Mbuagbaw, L., Thabane, L., Straus, S. E., & Hamid, J. S. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13161366
Leininger, B. D., Johnson, P. J., Bronfort, G., Kuntz, K. M., Enns, E. A., Hodges, J. S., & Evans, R. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25909988
Xu, B., Zhou, F., Yang, G., Wang, Z., Zhao, Z., Yu, Y., Wang, H., Liu, B., Yuan, T., & Wang, Y. C. (2026) · European Journal of Integrative Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2026.102622
Chao, Y., Li, B., Xie, Z., Jia, H., & Yongchen, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1648067
What can we learn from network meta-analyses published in top medical journals
Tian, C., Li, M., Jiang, J., Hou, L., Pan, B., Wang, Y. C., Ge, L., & Yue, X. (2026) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-03066-w
ОЦІНКА ЕКОНОМІЧНИХ ЕФЕКТІВ ПРОГРАМ ОХОРОНИ ЗДОРОВ’Я ДЛЯ ВІДНОВЛЕННЯ ТА РОЗВИТКУ РЕГІОНІВ УКРАЇНИ
Romashka, S. (2026) · ГРААЛЬ НАУКИ · doi:10.36074/grail-of-science.20.03.2026.045
Pemmaraju, N., Lucchesi, A., Oh, S. T., Wilson, K., Hakimi, Z., Buckley, S. A., Suthar, P., Parkitny, M., Wojciechowski, P., Kolonko, K., et al. (2026) · Expert Review of Hematology · doi:10.1080/17474086.2026.2686813
Palka, W., Moćko, P., Śladowska, K., Holko, P., & Kawalec, P. (2026) · Journal of Endocrinological Investigation · doi:10.1007/s40618-026-03006-y
Hutton, B., Fotheringham, J., Ervin, A., Sidhu, R., Lourenco, C., Samjoo, I. A., Cameron, C. G., & Dunne, B. (2026) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.57264/cer-2026-0054
Wong, R. S. M., Wilson, K., Hakimi, Z., Parkitny, M., Wojciechowski, P., Flynn, C. M., & Fatoye, F. (2026) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.57264/cer-2026-0015
Shitara, K., Rha, S. Y., Klempner, S. J., Lordick, F., Ranganath, R., Oh, M., Getzenberg, R. H., Gourgioti, G., Chai, X., & Yang, H. (2026) · ESMO Open · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2026.108530
Wang, X., Hui, X., Fu, Z., Guo, Y., Duan, L., Shi, W., Dong, Q., Xu, Q., & Xu, X. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.117257
Comparison of Surgical Approaches for Hirschsprung’s Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis
Ku, H.-C., Wei, C., Huang, Y.-J., & Huang, F. (2026) · Journal of Pediatric Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2026.163568
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
