A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for comparing the effectiveness and safety profile of treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis

Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 433-439

  Hadjigeorgiou, G M ^a   Doxani, C ^a   Miligkos, M ^b   Ziakas, P ^c   Bakalos, G ^a   Papadimitriou, D ^a   Mprotsis, T ^a   Grigoriadis, N ^d   Zintzaras, E ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THESSALY   (Greece)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d AHEPA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Greece)

^e TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

evidence based medicine; network meta analysis; systematic review

Indexed keywords

BETA1A INTERFERON; FINGOLIMOD; GLATIRAMER; INTERFERON BETA SERINE; MITOXANTRONE; NATALIZUMAB; TERIFLUNOMIDE;

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELAPSE; REVIEW;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; INTERFERON-BETA; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MITOXANTRONE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, RELAPSING-REMITTING; PEPTIDES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RECURRENCE;

EID: 84886950127     PISSN: 02694727     EISSN: 13652710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12090     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Fitzner D, Simons M,. Chronic progressive multiple sclerosis pathogenesis and neurodegeneration and therapeutic strategies. Curr Neuropharmacol, 2010; 8: 305-315.
2. Cohen JA,. Emerging therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol, 2009; 66: 821-828.
3. Comi G, Treatment of multiple sclerosis: role of natalizumab. Neurol Sci, 2009; 30 (Suppl 2): S155-S158.
4. Zintzaras E, Doxani C, Mprotsis T, Schmid CH, Hadjigeorgiou GM,. Network analysis of randomized controlled trials in multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther, 2012; 34: 857-869 e9.
5. 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.
6. Lumley T, Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med, 2002; 21: 2313-2324.
7. Ziogas DC, Voulgarelis M, Zintzaras E, A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of induction treatments in acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly. Clin Ther, 2011; 33: 254-279.
8. DerSimonian R, Laird N, Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials, 1986; 7: 177-188.
9. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al,. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess, 2005; 9: 1-134.
10. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG, Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ, 2009; 338: b1147.
11. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP, Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ, 2005; 331: 897-900.
12. Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA, Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2009; 9: 80.
13. van der Valk R, Webers CA, Lumley T, Hendrikse F, Prins MH, Schouten JS, A network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect comparisons between glaucoma drugs to rank effectiveness in lowering intraocular pressure. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009; 62: 1279-1283.
14. 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.