| Study design(s) targeted by the tool | Observational studies (mixed designs)observational-studies |
|---|---|
| Additional details on designs | NA |
| Tool area | Health; Health care decision making |
| Link to the tool | Get the Berger tool |
Details | |
| Website | https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/good-practices/article/a-questionnaire-to-assess-the-relevance-and-credibility-of-observational-studies-to-inform-health-care-decision-making |
| Primary publication | Berger M, Martin B, Husereau D, et al. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):143-56. |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.011 |
| Guidance document | |
| Training | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any training that should be listed here. |
| Language | English |
| Translations | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any translations that should be listed here. |
| Record last updated | 03/06/2026 |
Related tools and Publications | |
| Previous versions | None |
| Updated versions | None |
| Related tools | None |
| Evaluations | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any evaluations that should be listed here. |
| Other publications | This is part 1 of a 3-part series from ISPOR: Part 2: Caro JJ, Eddy DM, Kan H, et al. A modeling study questionnaire to assess study relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–182. Part 3: Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, et al. Indirect 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. Value Health. 2014;17(2):157-173. |
Key Criteria | |
| Focuses on risk of bias, or makes a distinction between items that assess risk of bias and other aspects of study quality | No |
| Offers a method to reach either a domain specific or overall assessment of risk of bias | No |
| Tool developed for use across topic areas (i.e. not developed for specific clinical area such as physiotherapy or dentistry) | No |
| Avoids recommending use of summary numerical quality scores | Yes |
