Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: Report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 1

Value in Health

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 417-428

  Jansen, Jeroen P ^a   Fleurence, Rachael ^b   Devine, Beth ^c   Itzler, Robbin ^d   Barrett, Annabel ^e   Hawkins, Neil ^b   Lee, Karen ^f   Boersma, Cornelis ^g   Annemans, Lieven ^h   Cappelleri, Joseph C ⁱ  

^a MAPI VALUES   (United States)

^b ICON PLC   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^e ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^f CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^h GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

ⁱ PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Comparative effectiveness; Decision making; Indirect treatment comparison; Mixed treatment comparison; Network meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); VALIDITY;

EID: 79959925787     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 2. Value Health 2011;14:429-37.
2. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from: http://www.cochranehandbook.org. [Accessed February 11, 2010].
3. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005;331:897-900. (Pubitemid 41502718)
4. Ioannidis JPA. Indirect comparisons: the mesh and mess of clinical trials. Lancet 2006;368:1470-2.
5. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoecnomics 2008;26:753-67.
6. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, et al. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Met-Analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.
7. 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;50:683-91. (Pubitemid 27341818)
8. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny A, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;326:472.
9. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23:3105-24. (Pubitemid 39334902)
10. Song F, Loke YK, 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. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24.
12. Working Group on Relative Effectiveness The Pharmaceutical Forum. [online]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/effectiveness-en.htm. [Accessed December 6, 2010].
13. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (Version 4.3). Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, December 2008.
14. Glenny AM. Statistical methods for indirect treatment comparisons. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:17-49.
15. Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, Stam W. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health 2008;11:956-64.
16. Jansen JP, Bergman GJ, Huels J, Olson M. Prevention of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: mixed treatment comparison of bisphosphonate therapies. Curr Med Res Opin 2009;25:1861-8.
17. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Agostoni P, Abbate A, et al. Adjusted indirect comparison of intracoronary drug-eluting stents: evidence from a metaanalysis of randomized bare-metal-stent-controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2005;100:119-23. (Pubitemid 40487945)
18. Mills EJ, Perri D, Cooper C, et al. Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2009;8:23.
19. Stettler C, Wandel S, Alleman S, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007;370:937-48. (Pubitemid 47393576)
20. Ades AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med 2003;22:2995-3016. (Pubitemid 37160601)
21. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, et al. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med 2009;28:1861-81.
22. Psaty BM, Lumley T, Furberg CD, et al. Outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. JAMA;289:2534-44.
23. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Lu G. Mixed comparison of stroke prevention treatments in individuals with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1269-75. (Pubitemid 43967578)
24. Vissers D, Stam W, Nolte T, et al. Efficacy of intranasal fentanyl spray versus other opioids for breakthrough pain in cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:1037-45.
25. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2009;373:746-58.
26. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JPA. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:544-53. (Pubitemid 351665420)
27. Coory M, Jordan S. Frequency of treatment-effect modification affecting indirect comparisons: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:723-32.
28. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006;101:447-59. (Pubitemid 43972289)
29. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010;29:932-44.
30. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein H. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009.
31. Skene AM, Wakefield JC. Hierarchical models for multicentre binary response studies. Stat Med 1990;9:919-29. (Pubitemid 20282393)
32. Gelman AB, Carlin JS, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall-CRC; 1995.
33. Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JPA, Lau, J. Meta-analysis of therapeutic trials. In: Chow S-C, ed., Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics (3rd ed.), Revised and Expanded. New York, NY: Informa Healthcare, 2010.
34. Berlin JA, Santanna J. Schmid CH, et al. Individual patient-versus group-level data meta-regression for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002;21:371-87. (Pubitemid 34144648)
35. Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:269-74. (Pubitemid 19128666)
36. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Jones DR. A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in metaregression with individual patient data metaanalysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:86-94. (Pubitemid 34037039)
37. McCullagh P, Nelder J. Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1989.
38. Dempster AP. The direct use of likelihood for significance testing. Stat Comput 1997;7:247-52. (Pubitemid 128000163)
39. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc (Series B) 2002;64:583-639.
40. Goodman, SN. Towards evidence based medical statistics: 1. The P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med 1999;120:995-1004. (Pubitemid 29283991)
41. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, et al. Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. London, UK: Wiley, 2000.
42. Spiegelhalter D, Abrams K, Myles J. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
43. Luce BR, Claxton K. Redefining the analytical approach to pharmacoeconomics. Health Econ 1999;8:187-9. (Pubitemid 29219083)
44. Hawkins N, Scott DA, Woods BS, Thather N. No study left behind: a network meta-analysis in non-small-cell lung cancer demonstrating the importance of considering all relevant data. Value Health 2009;12:996-1003.
45. Hawkins N, Scott DA, Wood BS. How far do you go? Efficient searching for indirect evidence. Med Decis Making 2009;29:273-81.
46. Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2008;17:279-301.
47. Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, et al. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? JAMA 1996;276:1332-8. (Pubitemid 26347996)
48. Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:487-97. (Pubitemid 29284818)
49. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
50. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 1967;20:637-48.
51. Rothwell PM. Factors that can affect the external validity of randomized controlled trials. PLOS Clin Trials 2006;1:e9.
52. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; January 2009.
53. Williamson PR, Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis Stat Methods Med Res 2005;14:515-24. (Pubitemid 41489523)
54. Liberati A, Altman DG. Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA Statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65-94.
55. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, and the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9.
56. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. WinBUGS User Manual: Version 1.4. MRC Biostatistics Unit: Cambridge, 2003.
57. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490.
58. Jansen JP. Bergman GJD, Huels J, Olson M. The efficacy of bisphosphonates in the prevention of vertebral, hip, and non-vertebral-non-hip fractures in osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2011;40:275-84.
59. Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.
60. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Comprehensive decision analytic modelling in economic evaluation: a bayesian approach. Health Econ 2004;13;203-26.
61. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1-19. (Pubitemid 43197227)
62. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003;290:1624-32. (Pubitemid 37430387)
63. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, et al. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009;301:831-41.
64. Chambers D, Rodgers M, Woolacott N. Not only randomized controlled trials, but also case series should be considered in systematic reviews of rapidly developing technologies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1253-60.
65. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-64. (Pubitemid 29242816)
66. Fleurence RL, Naci H, Jansen JP. The critical role of observational evidence in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:1826-33.