Table 2 Characteristics of tools, checklists or journal standards (n = 12)
First author, year of publication | # items | Type of instrument | Name | Type of assessment | Objective(s) | Research institute | Designed for a specific topic area | Domains within the tool | Rating of items and/or domains | Methods used to develop the tool | Guidance document |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ades 2012 [47] | 42 | Checklist | NICE DSU checklist | Reporting and methodological quality | Framework for determining whether a convincing argument has been made based on data presented | NICE | Standard meta-analysis, indirect comparisons and NMA | Definition of the decision problem, methods of analysis and presentation of results, issues specific to network synthesis, embedding the synthesis in a probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis | 3 domains: Definition of the decision problem, methods of analysis and presentation of results, issues specific to network synthesis, Embedding the synthesis in a probabilistic cost-effectiveness model | NR | No |
Al Khalifah 2018 [48] | 11 | Checklist | Guide for appraising NMA evidence | Reporting and methodological quality | Users’ guide for pediatricians considering the application of the results of NMA | McMaster University | NMA | Credibility of NMA methods, certainty of NMA evidence, were results consistent across studies, how trustworthy are the indirect comparisons, applicability | NA | NR | No |
Dias 2018 [49] | 14 | Checklist | Â | Validity of NMAs | Introduce and discuss validity of NMAs | University of Bristol | NMA | Question formulation, trial inclusion/ exclusion and network connectivity; heterogeneity and bias management; reporting | NA | NR | No |
Hutton 2015 [14] | 32 | Checklist | PRISMA NMA | Reporting | Present the NMA PRISMA extension and provide examples of good reporting | Ottawa Hospital Research Institute | Systematic reviews with NMA | Title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, funding | NA | Overview of reviews, Delphi, expert opinion | No |
Jansen 2011 [50] | 21 | Checklist | Simplified checklist to assist decision makers in evaluating a reported NMA | Reporting and methodological quality | Provide guidance on the interpretation of indirect treatment comparisons and NMA to assist policymakers and health-care professionals in using its findings for decision making | ISPOR | NMA | Introduction, methods, results, discussion | NA | NR | No |
Jansen 2014 [15] | 26 | Questionnaire | ISPOR | Reporting and methodological quality | Help decision makers assess the relevance and credibility of indirect treatment comparisons and NMA | ISPOR | NMA | Evidence base, analysis, reporting quality and transparency, interpretation, conflict of interest | 3 levels: yes, no, cannot answer | Expert opinion, literature search, pilot testing | No |
Kiefer 2015 [51] | 9 | Checklist | Checklist for evaluation of indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses | Reporting and methodological quality | Describe the underlying assumptions and methods used in indirect comparisons and NMA and explain what evaluation of such publications should include | Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) | NMA | Methods, statistical analysis, reporting, limitations | NA | NA | No |
Nikolakopoulou 2020 [23], Papakonstantinou 2020 [39], Salanti 2014 [40] | 6 | Framework | CINeMA | Confidence in results from NMA | Evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses | Cochrane and the Campbell collaboration | NMA | Within-study bias, reporting bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity and incoherence | 3 levels: no concerns, some concerns or major concerns (within); 4 levels: high, moderate, low, very low (summary) | Developed based on three previous studies, and participant feedback | Yes |
Ortega 2014 [46] | 20 | Checklist | Checklist for critical appraisal of indirect comparisons | Reporting and methodological quality | Critical appraisal of indirect comparisons of drugs, considering clinical, methodological/statistical and quality aspects, applied in drug evaluation in the decision-making | Clinica Universidad de Navarra | Indirect comparisons | Quality, clinical aspects, methodology/statistics | 3 levels: high, acceptable, low | Review of literature, group consensus, expert guidance | No |
Page 2020 [25] | 27 | Checklist | PRISMA 2020 Statement | Reporting | Describe and justify changes made to the guideline | Monash University | Systematic reviews | Title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, other information | NA | Review, survey, expert meeting | Yes |