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		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

CINeMA Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis, DSU Decision Support Unit, GRADE-NMA Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for Network Meta-Analysis, ISPOR International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, NA not applicable, NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NR not reported, OQAQ Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire, PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses