Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence fromj published meta-analyses

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence fromj published meta-analyses. / Song, F; Altman, DG; Glenny, AM; Deeks, Jonathan.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 326, 01.01.2003, p. 472.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{4a838d5754644d258a672bb99330591e,
title = "Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence fromj published meta-analyses",
abstract = "Objective To determine the validity of adjusted indirect comparisons by using data from published meta-analyses of randomised trials. Design Direct comparison of different interventions in randomised trials and adjusted indirect comparison in which two interventions were compared through their relative effect versus a common comparator. ne discrepancy between the direct and adjusted indirect comparison was measured by the difference between the two estimates. Data sources Database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (1994-8), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Medline, and references of retrieved articles. Results 44 published meta-analyses (from 28 systematic reviews) provided sufficient data. In most cases, results of adjusted indirect comparisons were not significantly different from those of direct comparisons. A significant discrepancy (P <0.05) was observed in three of the 44 comparisons between the direct and the adjusted indirect estimates. There was a moderate agreement between the statistical conclusions from the direct and adjusted indirect comparisons (κ 0.51). The direction of discrepancy between the two estimates was inconsistent. Conclusions Adjusted indirect comparisons usually but not always agree with the results of head to head randomised trials. When there is no or insufficient direct evidence from randomised trials, the adjusted indirect comparison may provide useful or supplementary information on the relative efficacy of competing interventions. The validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons depends on the internal validity and similarity of the included trials.",
author = "F Song and DG Altman and AM Glenny and Jonathan Deeks",
year = "2003",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.326.7387.472",
language = "English",
volume = "326",
pages = "472",
journal = "British Medical Journal",
issn = "0959-8138",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence fromj published meta-analyses

AU - Song, F

AU - Altman, DG

AU - Glenny, AM

AU - Deeks, Jonathan

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Objective To determine the validity of adjusted indirect comparisons by using data from published meta-analyses of randomised trials. Design Direct comparison of different interventions in randomised trials and adjusted indirect comparison in which two interventions were compared through their relative effect versus a common comparator. ne discrepancy between the direct and adjusted indirect comparison was measured by the difference between the two estimates. Data sources Database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (1994-8), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Medline, and references of retrieved articles. Results 44 published meta-analyses (from 28 systematic reviews) provided sufficient data. In most cases, results of adjusted indirect comparisons were not significantly different from those of direct comparisons. A significant discrepancy (P <0.05) was observed in three of the 44 comparisons between the direct and the adjusted indirect estimates. There was a moderate agreement between the statistical conclusions from the direct and adjusted indirect comparisons (κ 0.51). The direction of discrepancy between the two estimates was inconsistent. Conclusions Adjusted indirect comparisons usually but not always agree with the results of head to head randomised trials. When there is no or insufficient direct evidence from randomised trials, the adjusted indirect comparison may provide useful or supplementary information on the relative efficacy of competing interventions. The validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons depends on the internal validity and similarity of the included trials.

AB - Objective To determine the validity of adjusted indirect comparisons by using data from published meta-analyses of randomised trials. Design Direct comparison of different interventions in randomised trials and adjusted indirect comparison in which two interventions were compared through their relative effect versus a common comparator. ne discrepancy between the direct and adjusted indirect comparison was measured by the difference between the two estimates. Data sources Database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (1994-8), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Medline, and references of retrieved articles. Results 44 published meta-analyses (from 28 systematic reviews) provided sufficient data. In most cases, results of adjusted indirect comparisons were not significantly different from those of direct comparisons. A significant discrepancy (P <0.05) was observed in three of the 44 comparisons between the direct and the adjusted indirect estimates. There was a moderate agreement between the statistical conclusions from the direct and adjusted indirect comparisons (κ 0.51). The direction of discrepancy between the two estimates was inconsistent. Conclusions Adjusted indirect comparisons usually but not always agree with the results of head to head randomised trials. When there is no or insufficient direct evidence from randomised trials, the adjusted indirect comparison may provide useful or supplementary information on the relative efficacy of competing interventions. The validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons depends on the internal validity and similarity of the included trials.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.326.7387.472

DO - 10.1136/bmj.326.7387.472

M3 - Article

C2 - 12609941

VL - 326

SP - 472

JO - British Medical Journal

JF - British Medical Journal

SN - 0959-8138

ER -