Network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative cohort studies for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments: Challenges and opportunities

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Cameron, Chris ^a,b,h   Fireman, Bruce ^c   Hutton, Brian ^a,d   Clifford, Tammy ^a,e   Coyle, Doug ^a   Wells, George ^a   Dormuth, Colin R ^f   Platt, Robert ^g   Toh, Sengwee ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

^d OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

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

^f UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^g MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^h Department of Data Analytics and Evidence Synthesis   (Canada)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Distributed research networks; Network meta analysis; Observational studies; Pharmacoepidemiology; Randomized controlled trials

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION AND FOLLOW UP; EVALUATION STUDY; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NOTE; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; DRUG THERAPY; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SELECTION BIAS;

COHORT STUDIES; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DRUG THERAPY; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 84946399593     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0133-0     Document Type: Note

References (46)

1. Sutton a J, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10:277-303.
2. Caldwell DM, Ades a E, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331:897-900.
3. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades a E, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:607-17.
4. Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PloS ONE. 2014;9:1-10.
5. Hutton B, Joseph L, Fergusson D, Mazer CD, Shapiro S, Tinmouth A. Risks of harms using antifibrinolytics in cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. BMJ. 2012;345:e5798-8.
6. Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes DR, van Valkenhoef G, Hillege HL, van der Horst ICC, et al. Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pairwise and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:692-703. Elsevier Inc.
7. Stegeman BH, de Bastos M, Rosendaal FR, van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Stijnen T, et al. Different combined oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thrombosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f5298.
8. Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, et al. Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112:798-812.
9. Verde PE, Ohmann C. Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in clinical research: a review of methods and applications. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6:45-62.
10. Ioannidis JP a. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181:488-93.
11. Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11:159.
12. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA Extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777.
13. Schmitz S, Adams R, Walsh C. Incorporating data from various trial designs into a mixed treatment comparison model. Stat Med. 2013;32(17):2935-2949.
14. Van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zwinkels T, de Brock B, Hillege H. ADDIS: a decision support system for evidence-based medicine. Decis Support Syst. 2013;55:459-75.
15. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:641-56.
16. Freemantle N, Marston L, Walters K. Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research. BMJ. 2013;6409:1-5.
17. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887-92.
18. Vandenbroucke J, Psaty B. Benefits and risks of drug treatments: how to combine the best evidence on benefits with the best data about adverse effects. JAMA. 2008;300:2417-9.
19. Sørensen HT, Lash TL, Rothman KJ. Beyond randomized controlled trials: a critical comparison of trials with nonrandomized studies. Hepatology. 2006;44:1075-82.
20. Ioannidis JP, Haidich a B, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286:821-30.
21. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41-55.
22. Walker AM. Confounding by indication. Epidemiology. 1996;7:335-6.
23. Grimes D a, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002;359:248-52.
24. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden a J, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii - x, 1-173.
25. Puhan M a, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh J a, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5630-0.
26. Von Elm E, Altman D, Pocock D, Gotzsche, Peter; Vandenbroucke J. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ Br Med. 2007;335:20-2.
27. International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17:200-8.
28. Hernán M, Hernández-Díaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012;9:48-55.
29. Hernán M a, Alonso A, Logan R, Grodstein F, Michels KB, Willett WC, et al. Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments. Epidemiology. 2008;19:766-79.
30. Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:262-70.
31. Toh S, Manson JE. An analytic framework for aligning observational and randomized trial data: application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease. Stat Biosci. 2013;5:344-60.
32. McCarron CE, Pullenayegum EM, Thabane L, Goeree R, Tarride J-E. The importance of adjusting for potential confounders in Bayesian hierarchical models synthesising evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies: an application comparing treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysms. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:64.
33. McCarron CE, Pullenayegum EM, Thabane L, Goeree R, Tarride JE. Bayesian hierarchical models combining different study types and adjusting for covariate imbalances: a simulation study to assess model performance. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25635. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025635.
34. Behrman RE, Benner JS, Brown JS, McClellan M, Woodcock J, Platt R. Developing the Sentinel System-a national resource for evidence development. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:498-9.
35. Mini-Sentinel Data Core. Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database Summary Report-Year 4. 2014.
36. Suissa S, Henry D, Caetano P, Dormuth CR, Ernst P, Hemmelgarn B, et al. CNODES: the Canadian network for observational drug effect studies. Open Med. 2012;6:134-40.
37. Coloma PM, Schuemie MJ, Trifirò G, Gini R, Herings R, Hippisley-Cox J, et al. Combining electronic healthcare databases in Europe to allow for large-scale drug safety monitoring: the EU-ADR Project. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:1-11.
38. Andersen M, Bergman U, Choi N-K, Gerhard T, Huang C, Jalbert J, et al. The Asian Pharmacoepidemiology Network (AsPEN): promoting multi-national collaboration for pharmacoepidemiologic research in Asia. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:700-4.
39. Brown J, Holmes J, Shah K, Hall K. Distributed health data networks: a practical and preferred approach to multi-institutional evaluations of comparative effectiveness, safety, and quality of care. Med Care. 2010;48:45-51.
40. Toh S, Reichman ME, Houstoun M, Southworth MR. Comparative risk for angioedema associated with the use of drugs that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. PloS ONE. 2014;172:1582-9.
41. Filion KB, Chateau D, Targownik LE, Gershon A, Durand M, Tamim H, et al. Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of hospitalisation for community-acquired pneumonia: replicated cohort studies with meta-analysis. Gut. 2014;63:552-8.
42. Dormuth C, Hemmelgarn B. Use of high potency statins and rates of admission for acute kidney injury: multicenter, retrospective observational analysis of administrative databases. BMJ. 2013;880:1-10.
43. Dormuth CR, Filion KB, Paterson JM, James MT, Teare GF, Raymond CB, et al. Higher potency statins and the risk of new diabetes: multicentre, observational study of administrative databases. BMJ. 2014;348:g3244-4.
44. Fireman B, Toh S, Butler M. A protocol for active surveillance of acute myocardial infarction in association with the use of a new antidiabetic pharmaceutical agent. Drug Saf. 2012;21:282-90.
45. Eichler H-G, Oye K, Baird LG, Abadie E, Brown J, Drum CL, et al. Adaptive licensing: taking the next step in the evolution of drug approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91:426-37.
46. Morgan SG, Thomson PA, Daw JR, Friesen MK. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation on pharmaceutical product listing agreements: views from Canadian provinces. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:34.