A Comparison of National Guidelines for Network Meta-Analysis

Value in Health

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 642-654

  Laws, Andrew ^a   Kendall, Robyn ^a   Hawkins, Neil ^b  

^a ICON Health Economics   (Canada)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

guidelines; meta analysis; policy; reimbursement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BELGIUM; CANADA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FRANCE; GERMANY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NETWORK META ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; SOUTH AFRICA; SPAIN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

GUIDELINES; META-ANALYSIS; POLICY; REIMBURSEMENT;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84906080135     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. D.K. Owens, K.N. Lohr, and D. Atkins et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the effective health-care program J Clin Epidemiol 63 2010 513 523
2. J. Ioannidis Indirect comparisons: the MESH and MESS of clinical trials Lancet 368 2006 1470 1472
3. D.M. Caldwell, A.E. Ades, and J.P. Higgins Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence BMJ 331 2005 897 900
4. 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
5. F. Song, D.G. Altman, A.M. 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
6. G. Lu, and A.E. Ades Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons Stat Med 23 2004 3105 3124
7. F. Song, Y.K. Loke, and T. Walsh et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews BMJ 338 2009 b1147
8. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoenconomic guidelines around the world. 2012. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp. [Accessed September 18, 2012].
9. 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
10. An tÙdaràs Um Fhaisnèis agus Càiliocht Slàinte. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. 2010. Available from: http://www.hiqa.ie/publication/guidelines- economic-evaluation-health-technologies-ireland. [Accessed November 7, 2013].
11. AMCP Format Executive Committee and Working Group. The AMCP format for formulary submissions version 3.1. 2012. Available from: http://amcp.org/ practice-resources/amcp-format-formulary-submisions.pdf. [Accessed November 7, 2013].
12. Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket. Handbok till Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverkets föreskrifter (TLVFS 2011:3) om ansökan om pris och subvention för förbrukningsartiklar. 2011. Available from: http://www.tlv.se/Upload/ Foretag/Handbok-TLVFS2011-3-subvention-forbrukningsartiklar-sept-2011.pdf. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
13. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews - CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: University of York, 2009.
14. Contandriopolous A, Coyle D, Hailey D, et al. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 2006. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186-EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
15. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. Available from: http://publications.nice.org.uk/ guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
16. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Dossier for the Benefit Assesment pursuant to Section 35a of the German Social Code Book V - Module 4. 2011. Available from: http://www.g-ba.de/downloads/17-98-2998/II-6-Dossiervorlage-Modul4.pdf. [Accessed June 24, 2013].
17. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). 2008. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/ Content/AECB791C29482920CA25724400188EDB/$File/PBAC4.3.2.pdf. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
18. Cucherat M, Izard V. Indirect comparisons: methods and validity. 2010. Available from: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/ 2011-02/summary-report-indirect-comparisons-methods-and-validity-january-2011-2. pdf. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
19. Collège des Èconomistes de la Santè. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. 2004. Available from: http://www.ces-asso.org/docs/France-Guidelines-HE-Evaluation. PDF. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
20. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of New Product Assessment Form (NPAF). 2013. Available from: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/submissionprocess/Guidance-on-NPAF-V4- 0-August-2013.doc. [Accessed August 27, 2013].
21. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D.G. Altman Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Ann Intern Med 151 264-9 2009 W64
22. K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, and D. Moher CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials BMJ 340 2010 c332
23. South Africa Department of Health. The guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations of medicines and scheduled substances. 2013. Available from: http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=183162. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
24. Cleemput I, van Wilder P, Vrijens F, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Belgium: KCE reports 78C. 2008. Available from: https://kce.fgov.be/publication/report/guidelines-for-pharmacoeconomic- evaluations-in-belgium. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
25. J.P. Jansen, T. Trikalinos, and J.C. Cappelleri et al. 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 Health 17 2014 157 173
26. J.P. Jansen, R. Fleurence, and B. Devine et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1 Value Health 14 2011 417 428
27. J.P. Jansen, and H. Naci Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers BMC Med 11 2013 159
28. Wells G, Sultan S, Chen L, et al. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. 2009. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/ pdf/H0462-itc-tr-e.pdf. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guides to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/ howwework/devnicetech/GuideToMethods;TechnologyAppraisal2008.jsp?domedia= 1&mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459. [Accessed June 7, 2013].
30. ICWG. Report of the Indirect Comparisons Working Group (ICWG) to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC): Assessing Indirect Comparisons. ICWG. 2013. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/useful- resources/PBAC-feedback-files/ICWG%20Report%20FINAL2.pdf. [Accessed October 29, 2013]
31. J.P. Jansen, T. Trikalinos, and J.C. Cappelleri et al. 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 Health 17 2014 157 173
32. An tÙdaràs Um Fhaisnèis agus Càiliocht Slàinte. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland. HIQA 2010. Available from: http://www.hiqa.ie/publication/guidelines- economic-evaluation-health-technologies-ireland. [Accessed November 7, 2013]
33. Guidelines on how to conduct pharmacoeconomic analyses. Statens legemiddelverket. 2012. Available from: http://www.legemiddelverket.no/English/ price-and-reimbursement/application-for-reimursement/Lists/PageAttachments/ default/NO/Pharmacoeconomic%20guidelines%20-%20Norway.pdf. [Accessed November 7, 2013]
34. Agencja Oceny Technologii Medyczncyh. Guidelines for Conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA). AOTM. 2009. Available from: http://www.aotm.gov.pl/ assets/files/wytyczne-hta/2009/Guidelines-HTA-eng-MS-29062009.pdf. [Accessed November 7, 2013]