Articlehybrid2023

A methodological review of population-adjusted indirect comparisons reveals inconsistent reporting and suggests publication bias

Arnaud Serret-Larmande · Belkacem Zenati · Agnès Dechartres · Jérôme Lambert · David Hajage

15 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

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 Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) were developed in the 2010s to allow for comparisons between two treatments evaluated in different trials while accounting for differences in patient characteristics if individual patient data (IPD) are available for only one trial. Such comparisons are increasingly used in market access applications when a pharmaceutical company compares its new treatment (with IPD available) to another treatment developed by a competitor (with only aggregated data available). This study aimed to describe the characteristics of these PAICs, assess their methodology, and describe the reported results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Original articles reporting the use of at least one PAIC were searched on PubMed between January 1, 2010 and April 2, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 133 publications reporting the results of 288 PAICs. Half of the articles were published on or after May 7, 2020, and 71 (53%) pertained to onco-hematology. The pharmaceutical industry was involved in 130 (98%) articles. Key methodological aspects were reported inconsistently, with only three articles adequately reporting all aspects. A total of 161 (56%) articles reported a statistically significant benefit for the treatment evaluated on IPD. Conversely, only one PAIC significantly favored the treatment evaluated on aggregated data. CONCLUSION: Although the number of published PAICs is increasing, the methodology and transparency need to be improved. Moreover, our study strongly suggests a reporting bias. This situation calls for strengthening guidelines to improve trust in PAIC results and thus their reliability in market access applications.

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 — 15 citations exist upstream.

References

2016Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 2007Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies 1997The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 1988An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment 1995Practical methodology of meta‐analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data 2017Methods for Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Health Technology Appraisal 2002A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis

Cited by

2025Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Studies in Oncology: A Scoping Review Focused on Reporting Quality

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.