Adjusted indirect comparison for estimating relative effects of competing healthcare interventions

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn , Issue 2, 2007, Pages

  Song, Fujian ^a   Altman, Douglas G ^b   Glenny, Anne Marie ^c   Eastwood, Alison ^d   Deeks, Jonathan J ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c MANDEC ^*  (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA EXTRACTION; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW;

EID: 44949247358     PISSN: 1469493X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000020.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (5)

1. Bucher 1997 Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683-691.
2. Glenny 2005 Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, et al.Indirect comparison of competing interventions. Health Technology Assessment 2005 in press.
3. Kunz 2007 Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub2]
4. Song 2000 Song F, Glenny AM, Altman DG. Indirect comparison in evaluating relative efficacy-illustrated by antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Contr Clin Trials 2000;21:488-497.
5. Song 2003 Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;326:472- 475.