Indirect comparison: relative risk fallacies and odds solution

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 62, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1031-1036

  Eckermann, Simon ^a   Coory, Michael ^b   Willan, Andrew R ^c,d  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Consistent estimation; Framing; Indirect comparison; Inference; Odds ratio; Relative risk

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; INTERFERON BETA SERINE; NATALIZUMAB; PLACEBO; WARFARIN;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DRUG EFFICACY; HUMAN; INFERENTIAL STATISTICS; MORTALITY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STROKE; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTICOAGULANTS; ASPIRIN; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION; HUMANS; INTERFERON-BETA; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; ODDS RATIO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WARFARIN;

EID: 69749100189     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. The University of California San Francisco Library. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). 2007 Accessed October 7, 2008; Available at http://www.library.ucsf.edu/db/record.html?idrecord=29.
2. Rothman K. Placebo mania. BMJ 313 (1996) 3-4
3. Engels E., Schmid C., Terrin N., Olkin I., and Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 19 (2000) 1707-1728
4. Deeks J. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1575-1600
5. Furukawa T., Guyatt G., and Griffith L. Can we individualize the "number needed to treat"? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol 31 (2002) 72-76
6. Sheps M. Shall we count the living of the dead. N Engl J Med 259 (1958) 1210-1214
7. Walter S. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol 53 (2000) 931-939
8. Hart R.G., Benavente O., McBride R., and Pearce L.A. Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 131 (1999) 492-501 (iii)-(iv)
9. Glenny A., Altman D., Song F., Sakarovitch C., Deeks J., D'Amico R., et al. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 9 26 (2005) 1-134 (iii)-(iv)
10. DerSimonian R., and Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7 (1986) 177-188
11. ® November 2006. 2007 Accessed October 14, 2008; Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbac-psd-natalizumab-nov06.
12. Polman C.H., O'Connor P.W., Havrdova E., Hutchinson M., Kappos L., Miller D.H., et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 354 (2006) 899-910
13. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Interferon beta-1b in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 1995;45:1277-85
14. Song F., Altman D.G., Glenny A.-M., and Deeks J.J. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 326 (2003) 472-475
15. Australian Government Department of Health & Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). 2006; Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pubs-pharmpac-gusubpac.htm. Accessed December 19, 2008.
16. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21 (2002) 2313-2324
17. Caldwell D.M., Ades A.E., and Higgins J.P.T. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 331 (2005) 897-900
18. Eckermann SD, Coory M, Willan AR. Consistently estimating risk difference in a jurisdiction of interest. Flinders Centre for Clinical Change & Health Care Research Working Paper Series 2008 Accessed October 13, 2008; Available at http://clinicalchange.flinders.edu.au/publications.html.
19. Eckermann S, Coory M, Willan AR. Consistently estimating risk difference in a jurisdiction of interest: odds solution to relative risk fallacies. Value in Health. 2008;11(6):A577-8.
20. Boissel J.-P., Cucherat M., Nony P., Chabaud S., Gueyffier F., Wright J.M., et al. New insights on the relation between untreated and treated outcomes for a given therapy effect model is not necessarily linear. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008) 301-307
21. Chan A., and Altman D. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330 (2005) 10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F
22. Chan A., Hrobjartsson A., Haahr M., Gotzsche P., and Altman D. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials. JAMA 291 (2004) 2457-2465