Use of indirect comparison methods in systematic reviews: a survey of Cochrane review authors

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 71-79

  Abdelhamid, Asmaa S ^a   Loke, Yoon K ^a   Parekh Bhurke, Sheetal ^b   Chen, Yen Fu ^c   Sutton, Alex ^d   Eastwood, Alison ^e   Holland, Richard ^a   Song, Fujian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cochrane; indirect comparison; survey; systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896998420     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.51     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Higgins JP, Whitehead A. 1996. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 15(24): 2733–2749.
2. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. 1997. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50(6): 683–691.
3. Lumley T. 2002. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21(16): 2313–2324.
4. Lu G, Ades AE. 2004. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 23(20): 3105–3124.
5. Song F. 2009. What is indirect comparison? Available from: http://www.whatisseries.co.uk/whatis/pdfs/What_is_ind_comp.pdf. What is series.
6. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood AJ. 2005. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 9(26): 1–134, iii–iv.
7. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. 2009. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 338: b1147.
8. Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group (CMIMG), 2011. http://cmimg.cochrane.org/
9. Chou R, Fu R, Huffman LH, Korthuis PT. 2006. Initial highly-active antiretroviral therapy with a protease inhibitor versus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor: discrepancies between direct and indirect meta-analyses. Lancet 368(9546): 1503–1515.
10. Ioannidis JP. 2006. Indirect comparisons: the mesh and mess of clinical trials. Lancet 368(9546): 1470–1472.
11. Caldwell DM, Gibb DM, Ades AE. 2007. Validity of indirect comparisons in meta-analysis. Lancet 369(9558): 270; author reply 271.
12. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Churchill R, Barbui C. 2007. Validity of indirect comparisons in meta-analysis. Lancet 369(9558): 270–271; author reply 271.
13. Julious S, Wang S. 2008. How biased are indirect comparisons particularly when comparisons are made over time in controlled trials? Drug Inf J 42: 625–633.
14. Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, Holland R, Chen YF, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. 2011. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 343:d4909.
15. Prady SL, Macpherson H. 2007. Assessing the utility of the standards for reporting trials of acupuncture (STRICTA): a survey of authors. J Altern Complement Med 13(9): 939–943.
16. Soreide K, Winter DC. 2010. Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission. Surgery 147(4): 475–480.
17. Walker RL, Sykes L, Hemmelgarn BR, Quan H. 2010. Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment. BMC Med Educ 10: 21.
18. Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, Tudur-Smith C. 2010. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One 5(11): e11054.