Presentational approaches used in the UK for reporting evidence synthesis using indirect and mixed treatment comparisons

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To establish current guidance and practice in UK on presentation of indirect comparison and mixed treatment comparison analyses; to provide recommendations to improve indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison reporting and to identify research priorities for improved presentation. METHODS: Existing institutional guidance for conducting indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison alongside current practice in health technology assessment was reviewed. Reports published in UK by the Health Technology Assessment programme since 1997, which utilized indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison methods, were reviewed with respect to the presentation of study data, statistical models and results. Recommendations for presentation were developed. RESULTS: Guidance exists that provide the details necessary to conduct a successful indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison analysis but recommendations on presentation are limited. Of 205 health technology assessment reports that contained evidence synthesis for effectiveness, 19 used indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison methods. These reports utilized numerous presentational formats from which the following key components were identified: network table/diagram for presenting data; model description to allow reproducibility; and tables, forest plots, matrix tables and summary forest plots for presenting a range of results. Recommendations were developed to ensure that reporting is explicit, transparent and reproducible. Approaches most understandable by non-technical decision makers, and areas where future research is required, are outlined. CONCLUSIONS: There is no standard presentational style used in UK for reporting indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison, and the use of graphical tools is limited. Standardization of reporting and innovation in graphical representation of indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison results is required.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

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