ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Questionnaire for Indirect Treatment Comparisons/Network Meta-Analysis
A checklist to help assess how trustworthy and well-conducted a network meta-analysis or indirect treatment comparison is, especially when used in health decision-making.
At a glance
Use when
Evaluating NMAs or ITCs for use in HTA submissions, reimbursement decisions, or systematic reviews where indirect comparisons are necessary.
Avoid when
A quick or automated quality assessment is needed without expert input, or when dealing with direct head-to-head trials only.
Inputs
A published or draft indirect treatment comparison or network meta-analysis
Outputs
Structured assessment of methodological quality and credibility of the analysis
How it works
Developed by the ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force, this standardized questionnaire evaluates the methodological rigor of indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) and network meta-analyses (NMAs), focusing on study design, assumptions, statistical methods, and reporting transparency.
- HTA domains
- Clinical Effectiveness, Costs & Economic Evaluation, Safety
- Assumptions
- The checklist assumes that methodological rigor and transparency are key indicators of credibility in indirect comparisons and that standardized evaluation improves decision-making.
- Strengths
- Developed by a multi-stakeholder task force; promotes transparency; widely accepted in health technology assessment and reimbursement contexts; supports critical appraisal of complex evidence syntheses.
- Limitations
- May require expert knowledge to apply fully; focuses on methodological quality rather than clinical or economic conclusions; not a scoring system but a qualitative evaluation tool.
- Also known as
- ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Questionnaire, Questionnaire for Indirect Treatment Comparisons, NMA Checklist
Questions this answers
- › Does the analysis appropriately compare treatments that were not directly studied together?
- › Were the assumptions of network meta-analysis (e.g., consistency, transitivity) properly assessed?
- › Is the statistical methodology transparent and correctly applied?
- › Are the included studies comparable in key patient and design characteristics?
- › How credible and actionable are the results for decision-makers?
- › Is the reporting of the analysis complete and in line with best practices?
References & sources
Related methods
Similar by meaning
Beta record. Based on the original catalogue summary; primary-source enrichment pending.