Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Steven J Edwards · Mike J Clarke · Sarah Wordsworth · John Borrill

78 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Clinical Practice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate between the effects of competing interventions. However, head-to-head studies are unlikely to have been conducted for all competing interventions. AIM: Evaluation of different methodologies used to indirectly compare interventions based on meta analyses of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: Systematic review of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE and MEDLINE for reports including meta analyses that contained an indirect comparison. Searching was completed in July 2007. No restriction was placed on language or year of publication. RESULTS: Sixty-two papers identified contained indirect comparisons of treatments. Five different methodologies were employed: comparing point estimates (1/62); comparing 95% confidence intervals (26/62); performing statistical tests on summary estimates (8/62); indirect comparison using a single common comparator (20/62); and mixed treatment comparison (MTC) (7/62). The only methodologies that provide an estimate of the difference between the interventions under consideration and a measure of the uncertainty around that estimate are indirect comparison using a single common comparator and MTC. The MTC might have advantages over other approaches because it is not reliant on a single common comparator and can incorporate the results of direct and indirect comparisons into the analysis. Indirect comparisons require an underlying assumption of consistency of evidence. Utilising any of the methodologies when this assumption is not true can produce misleading results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of either indirect comparison using a common comparator or MTC provides estimates for use in decision making, with the preferred methodology being dependent on the available data.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 78 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons 1997The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 2002Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons 2003Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses 2005Indirect comparisons of competing interventions 1996BORROWING STRENGTH FROM EXTERNAL TRIALS IN A META-ANALYSIS 1995A meta-analysis of treatment outcome for panic disorder 1995Efficacy of Drug Treatment in Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder: a Meta-Analytic Review

Cited by

2015An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review 2012Methods for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project 2022The development of network meta-analysis 2024Low awareness of the transitivity assumption in complex networks of interventions: a systematic survey from 721 network meta-analyses 2011Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: direct and indirect treatment comparisons.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.