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.

By Jeroen P. Jansen, R. Fleurence, B. Devine, R. Itzler, Annabel Barrett, N. Hawkins, Karen M. Lee, C. Boersma, L. Annemans, Joseph C. Cappelleri. Value in Health, 2011

1,027 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/02db09b49bfdf5656f61fee1abea39e49d36998f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses (2017, background): “Indeed, some form of ranking is reported in two thirds of all published NMAs [7], and experts recommend ranking as a form of presentation [12].”
Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA (2013, background): “One of the advantages of network meta-analysis is that it can provide information about the ranking of all evaluated interventions for the studied outcome [2,42].”
MetaInsight: An interactive web‐based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta‐analyses using R‐shiny and netmeta (2019, methodology): “Meta‐analyses are established as a key component of the evaluation of medical interventions in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness and as such are at the forefront of health care decision making.(1) Pairwise meta‐analyses compare two interventions combining data from multiple head”
Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. (2011, methodology): “This report from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on technical aspects of conducting network meta-analyses (our use of this term includes most methods that involve meta-analysis i”
Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers (2013, methodology): “If a network meta-analysis consists of an evidence base where for some interventions there is both direct and indirect evidence, inconsistency can be evaluated by comparing the treatment effect estimates obtained from the direct comparison, with those obtained from the indirect comparisons for the s”
Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool (2012, methodology): “Two useful lists of recommendations for undertaking, reporting, and evaluating a network meta-analysis can be found in Jansen et al. (2011) and Ades et al. (2012).”
GetReal in network meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology (2016, methodology): “2009; EUnetHTA, 2013; Hoaglin et al., 2011; Ioannidis, 2009; Jansen et al., 2008, 2011a; Malone, 2007; Mills et al., 2011a, 2013b; Naci and Fleurence, 2011; Salanti, 2012; Sutton et al., 2008, 2009; Wells et al., 2009; Welton et al., 2012), which have also been explored in empirical assessments…”
Automated generation of node‐splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta‐analysis (2015, methodology): “It includes pair-wise meta-analysis (Hedges and Olkin, 1985) and indirect-comparison meta-analysis (Bucher et al ., 1997; Song et al ., 2003) as special cases (Jansen et al ., 2011; Dias et al ., 2013a).”
Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis (2013, background): “Probabilities for each treatment taking each possible rank can be plotted in absolute and cumulative rankograms (37, 41–43) or presented in a table (44) ( Appendix Figures 2 and 3 , available at www.annals.org).”