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

Value in Health

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 157-173

  Jansen, Jeroen P ^a,b   Trikalinos, Thomas ^c   Cappelleri, Joseph C ^d   Daw, Jessica ^e   Andes, Sherry ^f   Eldessouki, Randa ^g   Salanti, Georgia ^h  

^a Redwood Outcomes   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PFIZER INC   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f Catamaran   (United States)

^g ISPOR   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

Author keywords

bias; checklist; credibility; decision making; indirect comparisons; mixed treatment comparisons; multiple treatment comparison; network meta analysis; questionnaire; relevance; validity

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DISEASE SEVERITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISON NETWORK META ANALYSIS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDITY;

BIAS; CHECKLIST; CREDIBILITY; DECISION MAKING; INDIRECT COMPARISONS; MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISONS; MULTIPLE TREATMENT COMPARISON; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELEVANCE; VALIDITY;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84896381773     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. M. Berger, B. Martin, and D. Husereau et al. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report Value Health 17 2014 143-156
2. J.J. Caro, D.M. Eddy, and H. Kan et al. 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 2014 174-182
3. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Baltimore, MD: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. [Accessed February 11, 2013].
4. D.M. Caldwell, A.E. Ades, and JPT Higgins Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence BMJ 331 2005 897 900 (Pubitemid 41502718)
5. J.P.A. Ioannidis Indirect comparisons: the mesh and mess of clinical trials Lancet 368 2006 1470 1472
6. A. Sutton, A.E. Ades, N. Cooper, and K. Abrams Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment Pharmacoeconomics 26 2008 753 767
7. G.A. Wells, S.A. Sultan, and L. Chen et al. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis 2009 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Ottawa, Canada
8. H.C. Bucher, G.H. Guyatt, L.E. Griffith, and S.D. Walter The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Clin Epidemiol 50 1997 683 691 (Pubitemid 27341818)
9. F. Song, D.G. Altman, A. Glenny, and J.J. Deeks Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses BMJ 326 2003 472
10. G. Lu, and A.E. Ades Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons Stat Med 23 2004 3105 3124 (Pubitemid 39334902)
11. E. Mills, K. Thorlund, and J. Ioannidis Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis BMJ 346 2013 f2914
12. S. Dias, A.J. Sutton, A.E. Ades, and N.J. Welton Evidence synthesis for decision making, 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Med Decis Making 33 2013 607 617
13. J.P. Jansen, R. Fleurence, and B. Devine et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons & network meta-analysis for health care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - part 1 Value Health 14 2011 417 428
14. D.C. Hoaglin, N. Hawkins, and J.P. Jansen et al. Conducting indirect treatment comparison and network meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices - part 2 Value Health 14 2011 429 437
15. P. Jüni, A. Witschi, R. Bloch, and M. Egger The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis JAMA 282 1995 1054 1060 (Pubitemid 29436453)
16. A.E. Ades, D.M. Caldwell, and S. Reken et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making, 7: a reviewer's checklist Med Decis Making 33 2013 679 691
17. S. Donegan, P. Williamson, C. Gamble, and C. Tudur-Smith Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality PLoS One 5 2010 e11054
18. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman the PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Ann Intern Med 151 2009 264 269 W64
19. J.P. Higgins, D.G. Altman, P.C. Gøtzsche Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 343 2011 d5928
20. K. Dwan, C. Gamble, and R. Kolamunnage-Dona et al. Assessing the potential for outcome reporting bias in a review: a tutorial Trials 11 2010 52
21. J.P. Jansen, B. Crawford, G. Bergman, and W. Stam Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons Value Health 11 2008 956 964
22. J.P. Jansen, C.H. Schmid, and G. Salanti Direct acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons J Clin Epidemiol 65 2012 798 807
23. S.G. Thompson, and J.P. Higgins How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21 2002 1559 1573 (Pubitemid 34746063)
24. C.H. Schmid, P.C. Stark, and J.A. Berlin et al. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors J Clin Epidemiol 57 2004 683 697 (Pubitemid 39195218)
25. N.J. Cooper, A.J. Sutton, and D. Morris et al. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation Stat Med 28 2009 1861 1881
26. G. Salanti, V. Marinho, and J.P. Higgins A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 857 864
27. S. Dias, N. Welton, and V.C.C. Marinho et al. Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomised evidence using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis J Royal Stat Soc A 173 2010 613 629
28. J.P. Jansen Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data Res Synth Meth 3 2012 177 190
29. P. Saramago, A.J. Sutton, N.J. Cooper, and A. Manca Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data Stat Med 31 2012 3516 3536
30. S. Donegan, P. Williamson, U. D'Alessandro, and C. Tudur Smith Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: individual patient-level covariates versus aggregate trial-level covariates Stat Med 31 2012 3840 3857
31. G. Lu, and A.E. Ades Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons J Am Stat Assoc 101 2006 447 459 (Pubitemid 43972289)
32. S. Dias, N.J. Welton, D.M. Caldwell, and A.E. Ades Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis Stat Med 29 2010 932 944
33. A.E. Ades, G. Lu, and J.P. Higgins The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models Med Dec Making 25 2005 646 654 (Pubitemid 41667133)
34. G. Salanti, F.K. Kavvoura, and J.P.A. Ioannidis Exploring the geometry of treatment networks Ann Intern Med 148 2008 544 553 (Pubitemid 351665420)
35. S.N. Goodman Towards evidence based medical statistics, 1: the P value fallacy Ann Intern Med 120 1999 995 1004 (Pubitemid 29283991)
36. A.B. Gelman, J.S. Carlin, H.S. Stern, and D.B. Rubin Bayesian Data Analysis 2nd ed. 2003 Chapman and Hall-CRC Boca Raton
37. G. Salanti, A.E. Ades, and J.P. Ioannidis Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial J Clin Epidemiol 64 2011 163 171
38. G.H. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, G. Vist for the GRADE Working Group GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 336 2008 924 926 (Pubitemid 351632017)