Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 7
Open Access
- 26 June 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Medical Decision Making
- Vol. 33 (5) , 679-691
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x13485156
Abstract
This checklist is for the review of evidence syntheses for treatment efficacy used in decision making based on either efficacy or cost-effectiveness. It is intended to be used for pairwise meta-analysis, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analysis, without distinction. It does not generate a quality rating and is not prescriptive. Instead, it focuses on a series of questions aimed at revealing the assumptions that the authors of the synthesis are expecting readers to accept, the adequacy of the arguments authors advance in support of their position, and the need for further analyses or sensitivity analyses. The checklist is intended primarily for those who review evidence syntheses, including indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses, in the context of decision making but will also be of value to those submitting syntheses for review, whether to decision-making bodies or journals. The checklist has 4 main headings: A) definition of the decision problem, B) methods of analysis and presentation of results, C) issues specific to network synthesis, and D) embedding the synthesis in a probabilistic cost-effectiveness model. The headings and implicit advice follow directly from the other tutorials in this series. A simple table is provided that could serve as a pro forma checklist.Keywords
This publication has 62 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 5Medical Decision Making, 2013
- Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 4Medical Decision Making, 2013
- Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2Medical Decision Making, 2012
- A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-AnalysisJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2008
- Bias Modelling in Evidence SynthesisJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2008
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyBMJ, 2008
- What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse dataStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995