Use of indirect comparison methods in systematic reviews: a survey of Cochrane review authors

Asmaa S Abdelhamid · Yoon Kong Loke · Sheetal Bhurke · Yen‐Fu Chen · Alex J. Sutton · Alison J. Eastwood +2 more

20 citations0/0 files storedResearch Synthesis Methods

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

Because of insufficient evidence from direct comparison trials, the use of indirect or mixed treatment comparison methods has attracted growing interest recently. We investigated the views and knowledge of Cochrane systematic review authors regarding the use of indirect comparison and related methods in the evaluation of competing healthcare interventions. An online survey was sent to 84 authors of Cochrane systematic review reviews between January and March 2011. The response rate was 57%. Most respondents (87%) had heard of/had some knowledge of indirect comparison, and 23% actually used indirect comparison methods. Some were suspicious of the methods (9%). Most authors (89%) felt they needed more training, especially in assessing the validity of indirect evidence. Almost all felt that the validity of indirect comparison could potentially be influenced by a large number of effect modifiers. Many reviewers (76%) accepted that indirect evidence is needed as it may be the only source of information for relative effectiveness of competing interventions, provided that review authors and readers are conscious of its limitations. Time commitment and resources needed were identified as an important concern for Cochrane reviewers. In summary, there is an acceptance of the increasing demand for indirect comparison and related methods and an urgent need to develop structured guidance and training for its use and interpretation. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 — 20 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 2005Indirect comparisons of competing interventions 1996BORROWING STRENGTH FROM EXTERNAL TRIALS IN A META-ANALYSIS 2009Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews 2011Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study 2010Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality

Cited by

2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews 2023Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews 2014What Guidance Are Researchers Given on How to Present Network Meta-Analyses to End-Users such as Policymakers and Clinicians? A Systematic Review 2016Use of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews: a survey of authors

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.