Scoring criteria
| Grade | Category | Definition | Detailed description with examples from FADs or ERG/AG documents |
| 2 | Good | Good-quality data submitted, minimal modelling used | No critical words used, endorsements of data quality. For example: ‘the analysis was sound’, ‘the quality of clinical trials submitted was generally good’ |
| 1 | Acceptable | Acceptable quality data submitted, some modelling used (mapping or indirect comparison) and extrapolation, but modelling was assessed as robust | No or few critical words used, some concerns might be raised but committee accepted the data. For example: ‘MTC was supported by a reasonably sound systematic review process but MTC has certain limitations in conduct and reporting, including’ |
| 0 | Poor | Data submitted are from indirect sources, extensive modelling/assumptions used – indirect comparison, mapping, extrapolation and quality of the modelling is questionable either due to data or methodology | Criticism is clearly expressed. For example: ‘The manufacturer’s use of indirect comparisons is inappropriate. The manufacturer's submission reported very limited data on the comparator trials, and did not undertake a systematic review of these’, ‘utility studies were missed in this review by failing to search databases such as Medline. The extent to which studies were missed is unknown’ |
| −1 | Non-acceptable | Poor quality of evidence is submitted, significant modelling is used, or poor quality of evidence is submitted and quality of modelling is poor | Harsh criticism expressed. For example: ‘committee could not use presented evidence for decision-making’, ‘unacceptable’, ‘poor quality’ are used |
AG, assessment group; ERG, evidence review group; FAD, final appraisal determination; MTC, Mixed treatment comparison.