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

By F. Song, Douglas G. Altman, A. Glenny, J. Deeks. British medical journal, 2003

993 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab01339e426c92a4cbae8b062ba34efc2bd1eaf4

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. (2004, background): “However, djusted indirect comparisons such as those we present in his systematic review have been shown to provide reasonble estimates of the relative efficacy of different intervenions when the control arms are similar (8).”
Meta-Analysis: Exercise Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain (2005, result): “Outcome measures assessed, n (%) Pain 52 (85) 10 (91) 6 (100) 36 (84) Functional abilities 46 (75) 9 (82) 4 (67) 33 (77) Work status 21 (34) 5 (45) 6 (100) 9 (21) Global assessment 13 (21) 3 (27) 1 (17) 7 (16) Cost evaluation information presented, n (%) 8 (13) 2 (18) 2 (33) 4 (9)”
Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. (2011, background): “Confounders will bias the estimate for the indirect comparison in an unpredictable direction with uncertain magnitude [21].”
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. (2011, methodology): “Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for”
Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons (2006, background): “There is growing interest in this area, however, with empirical work comparing direct and indirect inferences through a third comparator (Bucher et al. 1997; Song et al. 2003), and applications in major medical journals (Pasty et al.”
Meta-Analysis: Secondary Prevention Programs for Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (2005, methodology): “To evaluate whether different types of secondary prevention programs had different effects, we calculated the summary risk ratio for each program type and used adjusted indirect comparisons to compare different types of interventions, according to the method of Song and colleagues (12).”
Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. (2003, background): “Recent empirical evidence suggests the validity of indirect comparisons for a number of conditions and interventions.(92) In a series of 44 meta-analyses that permitted comparisons between direct and indirect results, the number of significant differences (n=3) was only slightly higher than the numb”
Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 4 (2013, background): “This accords with the commonsense notion of inconsistency, which views it as a property of loops of evidence.(14,15) Every additional independent loop in a network of 2-arm trials represents 1 additional ICDF and one further way in which potential inconsistency can be realized.”
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, background): “2012, 3 80–97 9 0 and only three were found inconsistent (Song et al., 2003).”