Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 138-143

  Lee, Andrew W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Indirect comparison; Meta analysis; Mixed treatment comparison; Research design trends; Review literature

Indexed keywords

CINAHL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EMBASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDLINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

EID: 84891628307     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.014     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. S.J. Edwards, M.J. Clarke, S. Wordsworth, and J. Borrill Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials Int J Clin Pract 63 2009 841 854
2. F.J. Song, Y.K. Loke, T. Walsh, A.M. Glenny, A.J. Eastwood, and D.G. Altman Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews BMJ 338 2009 b1147
3. D.M. Eddy, V. Hasselblad, and R.A. Shachter Bayesian method for synthesizing evidence. The Confidence Profile Method Int J Technol Assess Health Care 6 1990 31 55
4. D.C. Hoaglin, N. Hawkins, J.P. Jansen, D.A. Scott, R. Itzler, and J.C. Cappelleri 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 14 2011 429 437
5. G. Lu, and A.E. Ades Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons Stat Med 23 2004 3105 3124
6. D.M. Caldwell, A.E. Ades, and J.P. Higgins Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence BMJ 331 2005 897 900
7. N.J. Cooper, A.J. Sutton, D. Morris, A.E. Ades, and N.J. Welton Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation Stat Med 28 2009 1861 1881
8. S. Dias, N.J. Welton, D.M. Caldwell, and A.E. Ades Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis Stat Med 29 2010 932 944
9. H.A. Dakin, N.J. Welton, A.E. Ades, S. Collins, M. Orme, and S. Kelly Mixed treatment comparison of repeated measurements of a continuous endpoint: an example using topical treatments for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension Stat Med 30 2011 2511 2535
10. A.M. Glenny, D.G. Altman, F. Song, C. Sakarovitch, J.J. Deeks, and R. D'Amico et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions Health Technol Assess 9 26 2005
11. J.H. Youn, J. Lord, K. Hemming, A. Girling, and M. Buxton Bayesian meta-analysis on medical devices: application to implantable cardioverter defibrillators Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28 2012 115 124
12. E. Zintzaras, C. Doxani, T. Mprotsis, C.H. Schmid, and G.M. Hadjigeorgiou Network analysis of randomized controlled trials in multiple sclerosis Clin Ther 34 2012 857 869.e9
13. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2008. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/media/ B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed September 30, 2012.
14. Sutton A, Ades A, Abrams K, Cooper N. Briefing paper for methods review workshop on evidence synthesis (indirect and mixed treatment comparisons). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2007. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/ media/4A6/2F/EvidenceSynthesisBriefingPaper.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
15. Evidence synthesis TSD series. NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU). Available at http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/Evidence-Synthesis-TSD-series(2391675). htm. Accessed October 1, 2012.
16. Trowman R, Stevens A, Tappenden P. Briefing paper for methods review working party on mixed treatment comparisons. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2011:1-16. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/media/C67/40/ TAMethodsGuideReviewSupportingDocuments.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
17. D. Moher, J. Tetzlaff, A.C. Tricco, M. Sampson, and D.G. Altman Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews PLoS Med 4 2007 e78
18. D. Moher, D.J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, and D.F. Stroup Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses Lancet 354 1999 1896 1900
19. A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P.C. Gotzsche, and J.P. Ioannidis et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration BMJ 339 2009 b2700
20. J.P.T. Higgins, and S. Green Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration Available at http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
21. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care 2009 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: University of York York, UK Available at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index-guidance.htm Accessed October 1, 2012
22. J.P. Jansen, R. Fleurence, B. Devine, R. Itzler, A. Barrett, and N. Hawkins 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 14 2011 417 428