ISPOR states its position on network meta-analysis

Value in Health

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 414-416

  Ades, A E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DRUG INDUSTRY; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 79959961062     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.001     Document Type: Editorial

References (25)

1. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24.
2. Gleser LJ, Olkin I. Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, eds., The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.
3. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 1996;5:2733-49. (Pubitemid 27011054)
4. Hasselblad V. Meta-analysis of multi-treatment studies. Med Decis Making 1998;18:37-43.
5. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. Meta-analysis by the Confidence Profile Method. London: Academic Press, 1992.
6. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. 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 Health 2011;14:417-28.
7. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment- comparison 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.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2008.
9. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Version 4.3. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Aging, 2008.
10. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, et al. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-analysis. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2009.
11. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration, Wiley, 2008.
12. Sculpher MJ. NICE's 2008 Methods Guide: sensible consolidation or opportunities missed. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:721-4.
13. Rubin DB. A new perspective on meta-analysis. In: Wachter KW, Straf ML, eds., The Future of Meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1990.
14. Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:290-6.
15. Hawkins N, Scott DA, Woods B. How far do you go? Efficient searching for indirect evidence. Med Decis Making 2009;29:273-81.
16. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. In: Chalmers I, Altman DG, eds., Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995.
17. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Series (A) 2009;172:137-59.
18. McAlister F, Laupacis A, Wells GA, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. XIX Applying clinical trial results. B. Guidelines for determining whether a drug is exerting (more than) a class effect. JAMA 1999;282:1371-7. (Pubitemid 29483196)
19. Lu G, Ades AE. Modelling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics 2009;10:792-805.
20. Lu G, Welton NJ, Higgins JPT, et al. Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: a two-stage approach. Res Synthesis Methods (in press).
21. Song F, Loke Y-K, 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.
22. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles J. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. New York: Wiley, 2004.
23. Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JPT. The interpretation of random effects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Making 2005;25:646-54. (Pubitemid 41667133)
24. Welton NJ, Ades AE, Carlin JB, et al. Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors. J R Stat Soc Series (A) 2009;172:119-36.
25. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 1996;5:513-24.