Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons & Network Meta-Analysis for Health Care Decision-making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Part 1
نویسندگان
چکیده
1 Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA 2 Center for Health Economics and Science Policy, United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA 3 Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research & Policy Program, School of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, University of Washington, USA 4 Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA, USA 5 Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Windlesham, Surrey, UK 6 Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK 7 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, ON, Canada 8 University of Groningen / HECTA, Groningen, Netherlands 9 Pfizer Inc, New London, CT, USA
منابع مشابه
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.
Evidence-based health-care decision making requires comparisons of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized, controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best choice(s) of treatment. Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case...
متن کاملConducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.
Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network ...
متن کاملIndirect 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.
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-anal...
متن کاملGood practices for real‐world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR‐ISPE Special Task Force on real‐world evidence in health care decision making
PURPOSE Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making. METHODS The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmaco...
متن کاملTools for health care decision making: observational studies, modeling studies, and network meta-analyses.
Comparative effectiveness research incorporates study designs extending beyond the randomized controlled trial (RCT) [1], which is the touchstone for demonstrating therapeutic efficacy. The litany of RCT flaws is often recited: not real world, not real patients, not real settings, not available, not timely, and not affordable. Although not every RCT is well designed, there are established narra...
متن کامل