Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new drugs - empirical evidence from three meta-analyses

F Song; Richard Lilford; I Harvey

Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new drugs - empirical evidence from three meta-analyses

Applied Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

143 Citations (Scopus)

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	455-463
Number of pages	9
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	61(5)
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2007

Cite this

@article{ccffbdceb75f4ce3bad4591d9c95ebe7,

title = "Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new drugs - empirical evidence from three meta-analyses",

author = "F Song and Richard Lilford and I Harvey",

year = "2007",

month = jan,

day = "1",

language = "English",

volume = "61(5)",

pages = "455--463",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "1878-5921",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new drugs - empirical evidence from three meta-analyses

AU - Song, F

AU - Lilford, Richard

AU - Harvey, I

PY - 2007/1/1

Y1 - 2007/1/1

M3 - Article

C2 - 18394538

SN - 1878-5921

VL - 61(5)

SP - 455

EP - 463

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -