Document Detail


Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21085712     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: The indirect comparison of two interventions can be valuable in many situations. However, the quality of an indirect comparison will depend on several factors including the chosen methodology and validity of underlying assumptions. Published indirect comparisons are increasingly more common in the medical literature, but as yet, there are no published recommendations of how they should be reported. Our aim is to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to add to existing empirical data suggesting that improvements can be made when reporting and applying indirect comparisons.
METHODOLOGY/FINDINGS: Reviews applying statistical methods to indirectly compare the clinical effectiveness of two interventions using randomised controlled trials were eligible. We searched (1966-2008) Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane library, and Medline. Full review publications were assessed for eligibility. Specific criteria to assess quality were developed and applied. Forty-three reviews were included. Adequate methodology was used to calculate the indirect comparison in 41 reviews. Nineteen reviews assessed the similarity assumption using sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression. Eleven reviews compared trial-level characteristics. Twenty-four reviews assessed statistical homogeneity. Twelve reviews investigated causes of heterogeneity. Seventeen reviews included direct and indirect evidence for the same comparison; six reviews assessed consistency. One review combined both evidence types. Twenty-five reviews urged caution in interpretation of results, and 24 reviews indicated when results were from indirect evidence by stating this term with the result.
CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the underlying assumptions are not routinely explored or reported when undertaking indirect comparisons. We recommend, therefore, that the quality of indirect comparisons should be improved, in particular, by assessing assumptions and reporting the assessment methods applied. We propose that the quality criteria applied in this article may provide a basis to help review authors carry out indirect comparisons and to aid appropriate interpretation.
Authors:
Sarah Donegan; Paula Williamson; Carrol Gamble; Catrin Tudur-Smith
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review     Date:  2010-11-10
Journal Detail:
Title:  PloS one     Volume:  5     ISSN:  1932-6203     ISO Abbreviation:  PLoS ONE     Publication Date:  2010  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-11-18     Completed Date:  2011-04-27     Revised Date:  2013-07-03    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101285081     Medline TA:  PLoS One     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e11054     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Sarah.Donegan@liverpool.ac.uk
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Humans
Matched-Pair Analysis*
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / methods*,  standards*,  statistics & numerical data
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design / standards*,  statistics & numerical data
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Barriers to insecticide-treated mosquito net possession 2 years after a mass free distribution campa...
Next Document:  Localization of secondary metabolites in marine invertebrates: contribution of MALDI MSI for the stu...