Redwood Outcomes, Boston, MA, USA; Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Program in Public Health, Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Value Health. 2014 Mar;17(2):157-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004.
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.
尽管网络荟萃分析随机对照试验证据对于医疗保健决策具有巨大的实际或潜在价值，但许多决策者可能并不熟悉这些技术。专家组制定了一个基于共识的 26 项问卷，以帮助决策者评估间接治疗比较和网络荟萃分析对医疗保健决策的相关性和可信度。问卷的相关性领域（4 个问题）要求对网络荟萃分析结果在决策者感兴趣的环境中的适用性进行评估。其余 22 个问题属于一个整体可信度领域，涉及对网络荟萃分析结果是否通过检查 1）使用的证据基础、2）分析方法、3）报告质量和透明度、4）对研究结果的解释以及 5）利益冲突，为他们旨在回答的问题提供有效答案的评估。该问卷旨在帮助网络荟萃分析的读者对网络荟萃分析结果的可信度和适用性发表意见，并帮助决策者意识到分析随机试验证据网络所涉及的细微差别。预计用户反馈将允许定期评估和修改问卷。
