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

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. Jansen, J. P., Trikalinos, T., Cappelleri, J. C., Daw, J., Andes, S., Eldessouki, R., & Salanti, G. Value in Health, 17(2):157–173, March, 2014.

Paper doi abstract bibtex

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 metaanalysis 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.

@article{jansen_indirect_2014-1,
	title = {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}},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {10983015},
	shorttitle = {Indirect {Treatment} {Comparison}/{Network} {Meta}-{Analysis} {Study} {Questionnaire} to {Assess} {Relevance} and {Credibility} to {Inform} {Health} {Care} {Decision} {Making}},
	url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301514000126},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004},
	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 metaanalysis 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.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2019-05-02},
	journal = {Value in Health},
	author = {Jansen, Jeroen P. and Trikalinos, Thomas and Cappelleri, Joseph C. and Daw, Jessica and Andes, Sherry and Eldessouki, Randa and Salanti, Georgia},
	month = mar,
	year = {2014},
	pages = {157--173},
	file = {Jansen et al. - 2014 - Indirect Treatment ComparisonNetwork Meta-Analysi.pdf:/Users/neil.hawkins/Zotero/storage/VHPUUYXD/Jansen et al. - 2014 - Indirect Treatment ComparisonNetwork Meta-Analysi.pdf:application/pdf},
}

Downloads: 0

{"_id":"PTfsuSA2bCv3TYKh4","bibbaseid":"jansen-trikalinos-cappelleri-daw-andes-eldessouki-salanti-indirecttreatmentcomparisonnetworkmetaanalysisstudyquestionnairetoassessrelevanceandcredibilitytoinformhealthcaredecisionmakinganisporamcpnpcgoodpracticetaskforcereport-2014","author_short":["Jansen, J. P.","Trikalinos, T.","Cappelleri, J. C.","Daw, J.","Andes, S.","Eldessouki, R.","Salanti, G."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"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","volume":"17","issn":"10983015","shorttitle":"Indirect Treatment Comparison/Network Meta-Analysis Study Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility to Inform Health Care Decision Making","url":"https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301514000126","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004","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 metaanalysis 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.","language":"en","number":"2","urldate":"2019-05-02","journal":"Value in Health","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Jansen"],"firstnames":["Jeroen","P."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Trikalinos"],"firstnames":["Thomas"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Cappelleri"],"firstnames":["Joseph","C."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Daw"],"firstnames":["Jessica"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Andes"],"firstnames":["Sherry"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Eldessouki"],"firstnames":["Randa"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Salanti"],"firstnames":["Georgia"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"March","year":"2014","pages":"157–173","file":"Jansen et al. - 2014 - Indirect Treatment ComparisonNetwork Meta-Analysi.pdf:/Users/neil.hawkins/Zotero/storage/VHPUUYXD/Jansen et al. - 2014 - Indirect Treatment ComparisonNetwork Meta-Analysi.pdf:application/pdf","bibtex":"@article{jansen_indirect_2014-1,\n\ttitle = {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}},\n\tvolume = {17},\n\tissn = {10983015},\n\tshorttitle = {Indirect {Treatment} {Comparison}/{Network} {Meta}-{Analysis} {Study} {Questionnaire} to {Assess} {Relevance} and {Credibility} to {Inform} {Health} {Care} {Decision} {Making}},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301514000126},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004},\n\tabstract = {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 metaanalysis 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.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2019-05-02},\n\tjournal = {Value in Health},\n\tauthor = {Jansen, Jeroen P. and Trikalinos, Thomas and Cappelleri, Joseph C. and Daw, Jessica and Andes, Sherry and Eldessouki, Randa and Salanti, Georgia},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tpages = {157--173},\n\tfile = {Jansen et al. - 2014 - Indirect Treatment ComparisonNetwork Meta-Analysi.pdf:/Users/neil.hawkins/Zotero/storage/VHPUUYXD/Jansen et al. - 2014 - Indirect Treatment ComparisonNetwork Meta-Analysi.pdf:application/pdf},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Jansen, J. P.","Trikalinos, T.","Cappelleri, J. C.","Daw, J.","Andes, S.","Eldessouki, R.","Salanti, G."],"bibbaseid":"jansen-trikalinos-cappelleri-daw-andes-eldessouki-salanti-indirecttreatmentcomparisonnetworkmetaanalysisstudyquestionnairetoassessrelevanceandcredibilitytoinformhealthcaredecisionmakinganisporamcpnpcgoodpracticetaskforcereport-2014","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301514000126"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/f/FfNE7kWA6pCvwcJZF/myPubs.bib","dataSources":["ZaHtWavQhcwZqKLNF","iRRNaRs6FkffgErta","v8uQmZsBpiqycmskv"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["indirect","treatment","comparison","network","meta","analysis","study","questionnaire","assess","relevance","credibility","inform","health","care","decision","making","ispor","amcp","npc","good","practice","task","force","report","jansen","trikalinos","cappelleri","daw","andes","eldessouki","salanti"],"title":"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","year":2014}