ITC Feasibility Assessment Workbook
An editable evidence inventory and decision record for network connectivity, endpoint alignment, effect modifiers, population adjustment, and the human decision to proceed, restrict, or stop an indirect comparison.
On this page
What this is
A feasibility workbook for an indirect treatment comparison (ITC), network meta-analysis (NMA), or population-adjusted comparison. It separates evidence inventory, clinical comparability, statistical assumptions, and accountable decisions. The Excel file organizes repeated records; the Word template supplies the narrative rationale.
When to use
Use during evidence planning and after a systematic search and extraction begin, before selecting or executing a synthesis model. Identify the treatment comparison, target population, endpoint, timepoint, effect measure, and decision context first.
What it requires
Inventory treatment-study contributions and available individual or aggregate data. Check endpoint definitions, treatment strategies, follow-up, and effect direction. Record candidate effect modifiers, their distributions and measurement, overlap, missingness, and clinical rationale. Distinguish a population-average target from a conditional model effect.
Anchored versus unanchored
A common randomized comparator permits an anchored analysis only under appropriate cross-study assumptions; connectivity alone is insufficient. MAIC or STC does not repair unmeasured material effect modification. Unanchored comparisons require stronger adjustment for prognostic variables as well as effect modifiers. Record unavailable information as a limitation that may prevent comparison. Effective sample size is a diagnostic, not an approval threshold.
When not to use
Do not treat completed fields, network connectivity, statistical significance, or a checklist total as proof of transitivity or feasibility. A human methods owner must document whether the evidence supports proceeding, restricting the question, or stopping; the workbook calculates no feasibility score.
How it maps to the catalog
Use ISPOR ITC guidance, anchored ITC, NMA, and MAIC/STC. Attach the record to the ITC/NMA protocol template.
Downloads
Word template · Markdown · Excel workbook · Build prompt · Review prompt
Model assistance
Complete kit ZIP · Instructions · Portable SKILL.md. Keep the folder together. Use the separate review prompt on the actual completed artifacts; the model must preserve missing facts and unapproved choices as unresolved.
Checklist
- Define target population, endpoint, timepoint, treatment strategies, and effect measure before model selection.
- Document network structure and clinical comparability separately; trace every contribution to its source.
- Assess material effect modifiers, prognostic variables where needed, overlap, and unavailable information.
- Record method-specific assumptions, diagnostics, uncertainty, and human proceed/restrict/stop rationale.
Citations
- [1]Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. 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. Value in Health. 2011;14(4):417-428.
- [2]Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 2. Value in Health. 2011;14(4):429-437.
- [3]Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Medical Decision Making. 2018;38(2):200-211.