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
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
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
Self-citationCINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis
Nikolakopoulou, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Papakonstantinou, T., Chaimani, A., Del Giovane, C., Egger, M., & Salanti, G. (2020) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003082 · Cited by 1,935
Self-citationPuhan, M. A., Schunemann, H. J., Murad, M. H., Li, T., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Singh, J. A., Kessels, A. G., Guyatt, G. H., & for the GRADE Working Group (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g5630 · Cited by 1,812
Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods
Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2015) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8 · Cited by 1,732
Comparisons of Interventions for Preventing Falls in Older Adults
Tricco, A. C., Thomas, S. M., Veroniki, A. A., Hamid, J. S., Cogo, E., Strifler, L., Khan, P. A., Robson, R. C., Sibley, K. M., MacDonald, H. R., et al. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.15006 · Cited by 657
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
