Frequency of treatment-effect modification affecting indirect comparisons: A systematic review

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 723-732

  Coory, Michael ^a   Jordan, Susan ^b  

^a CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTRE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THERAPY EFFECT; VALIDITY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77956232863     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11535670-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Schultz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-412
2. Kaptchuk T. The double blind randomized placebo con-trolled trial: gold standard or golden calf? J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 541-549
3. Freemantle N, Hessel F. The applicability and general-izability of findings from clinical trials for health-policy decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (1): 5-10
4. Ioannidis J. Indirect comparisons: the mesh and mess of clinical trials. Lancet 2006; 368: 1470-1472
5. Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 3). Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, 2008
6. Bucher H, Guyatt G, Griffith L, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-691
7. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. Indirect compar-isons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (26): 1-134, iii-iv
8. Gartlehner G, Moore C. Direct versus indirect comparisons: a summary of the evidence. Int J Tech Ass Health Care 2008; 24: 170-177
9. Sutton A, Ades A, Cooper N, et al. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 753-767
10. Song F, Loke Y, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009; 338: b1147
11. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med 1983; 2: 243-251
12. Hardy R, Thompson S. Detecting and describing hetero-geneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1998; 17: 841-856
13. Fletcher J. What is heterogeneity and is it important? BMJ 2007; 334: 94-96
14. Cipriani A, Furukawa T, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antide-pressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373: 746-758
15. Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 455-463
16. Greenland S, Lash T, Rothman K. Concepts of interaction. In: Rothman K, Greenland S, Lash T, editors. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008: 71-86
17. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 2 [updated 2009 Sep; online]. Available from URL: http://www. cochrane-handbook.org [Accessed 2010 Jan 1]
18. Caldwell M, Ades A, Higgins J. Simultaneous comparisons of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005; 331: 897-900
19. Song F, Altman D, Glenny A, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 326: 472-476
20. Chou R, Fu R, Huffman L, et al. Initial highly-active anti-retroviral therapy with a protease inhibitor versus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor: discrepancies between direct and indirect meta-analyses. Lancet 2006; 368: 1503-1515
21. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986 Sep; 7: 177-188
22. Berlin JA, Laird NM, Sacks HS, et al. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med 1989 Feb; 8: 141-151
23. Engels E, Schmid C, Terrin N, et al. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1707-1728
24. Deeks J. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1575-1600
25. Furukawa T, Guyatt G, Griffith L. Can we individualize the 'number needed to treat'? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 72-76
26. Fleiss J. Statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Meth Med Research 1993; 2: 121-145
27. Sheps M. Shall we count the living or the dead? N Engl J Med 1958; 259: 1210-1214
28. Walter S. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 931-939
29. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, et al. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovas Dis 1985 Mar-Apr; 27: 335-371
30. Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558
31. Eckermann S, Coory M, Wellan A. Indirect comparisons: relative risk fallacies and odds solution. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1031-1036
32. McAlister F. Relative treatment effects are consistent across the spectrum of underlying risks. usually. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 76-7