Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.


Hoaglin, DC; Hawkins, N; Jansen, JP; Scott, DA; Itzler, R; Cappelleri, JC; Boersma, C; Thompson, D; Larholt, KM; Diaz, M; Barrett, A; (2011) Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value in health, 14 (4). pp. 429-37. ISSN 1098-3015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

: Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct evidence and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than traditional meta-analysis. 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 in the context of a network of evidence). We start with a discussion of strategies for developing networks of evidence. Next we briefly review assumptions of network meta-analysis. Then we focus on the statistical analysis of the data: objectives, models (fixed-effects and random-effects), frequentist versus Bayesian approaches, and model validation. A checklist highlights key components of network meta-analysis, and substantial examples illustrate indirect treatment comparisons (both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) and network meta-analysis. A further section discusses eight key areas for future research.<br/>

Item Type: Article
Keywords: Advisory Committees, Advisory Committees: standards, Delivery of Health Care, Delivery of Health Care: standards, Economics, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Outcome Assessment (Health Care): standards, Pharmaceutical, Pharmaceutical: standards, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic: standards, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic: methods, Research Design, Research Design: standards, Research Report, Research Report: standards, Treatment Outcome, Advisory Committees, standards, Delivery of Health Care, standards, Economics, Pharmaceutical, standards, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), standards, Practice Guidelines as Topic, standards, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, methods, Research Design, standards, Research Report, standards, Treatment Outcome
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Public Health and Policy > Dept of Health Services Research and Policy
Research Centre: Centre for Statistical Methodology
PubMed ID: 21669367
Web of Science ID: 299080800005
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/2535055

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
0Downloads
88Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item