Indirect treatment comparison
ITCs and MAICs your reviewer can reproduce.
Knowledgeable scaffolds anchored and unanchored MAICs, NMAs and standard ITCs against the comparators that actually matter to your HTA, with assumptions tracked, sensitivity pre-run and the code your ERG or IQWiG can reproduce.
Watch it run on your work.
Where this fits in your workflow.
Knowledgeable scaffolds anchored and unanchored MAICs, NMAs and standard ITCs against the comparators that actually matter to your HTA, with assumptions tracked, sensitivity pre-run and the code your ERG or IQWiG can reproduce.
Most teams running Indirect comparison today juggle a stack of search tools, PDF readers and consultancy slides, then spend the back half of the project reconciling claims to sources. Knowledgeable collapses that into one defensible workflow: itcs and maics your reviewer can reproduce.
The work runs against your literature, trial registries, HTA precedent, label and SmPC, with every sentence pinpoint-cited so your senior reviewer opens a document that's already at QC.
- 1Scope & comparator locked
- 2Evidence pulled & graded
- 3Draft built with citations
- 4QC pass against framework
The work that finally lands the way you scoped it.
Anchored, unanchored and NMA
Scaffolding that fits the evidence you actually have, not the method you wish applied.
Assumption tracker
Every clinical and methodological assumption logged with rationale and source. Sensitivity pre-run.
Reviewer-reproducible
Code, inputs and data dictionary packaged so the ERG, IQWiG or HAS can re-run the analysis end-to-end.
Drops into the dossier
Outputs land in the reviewer-shaped section of the AMNOG / NICE / HAS dossier with citations intact.
Defend the comparison, not the spreadsheet.
Scope your next ITCBuilt for HTA scrutiny.
Methodologically defensible, fully audit-trailed and reproducible. ISPOR-grade, not vendor-grade.