Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.

A M Glenny1, D G Altman, F Song

  • 1Cochrane Oral Health Group, Dental School, University of Manchester, UK.

Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England)
|July 15, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Advancing a Global Oral Health Research Agenda.

Journal of dental research·2026
Same author

Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews.

Journal of dental research·2021
Same author

Protocol for a Randomised controlled trial to Evaluate the effectiveness and cost benefit of prescribing high dose FLuoride toothpaste in preventing and treating dEntal Caries in high-risk older adulTs (reflect trial).

BMC oral health·2019
Same author

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials.

The British journal of dermatology·2019
Same author

'Allocation concealment': the evolution and adoption of a methodological term.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2018
Same author

[Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide].

Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))·2018

Indirect comparisons are used in less than 10% of systematic reviews. While adjusted indirect comparisons are preferred, they may still be biased and require more data than direct comparisons.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • Health Research Methodology

Background:

  • Indirect comparisons are increasingly utilized in systematic reviews when direct head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are unavailable.
  • The methodological rigor and interpretation of indirect comparisons in systematic reviews vary significantly, necessitating a comprehensive evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the frequency of indirect comparison use in systematic reviews.
  • To critically assess the analytical and interpretative methods of indirect comparisons.
  • To identify and evaluate alternative statistical approaches for indirect comparison analysis and compare them with direct estimates.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic search of databases (DARE, MEDLINE) for systematic reviews featuring meta-analyses of RCTs with direct and/or indirect comparisons.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Development of simulation models using data from the International Stroke Trial to compare various indirect comparison methods against direct comparisons.
  • In-depth case studies analyzing discrepancies between direct and indirect effect estimates.

    • Main Results:

    • Only 9.5% of reviewed systematic reviews incorporated indirect comparisons, with few employing formal analytical methods.
    • Simulation studies revealed that naive indirect comparison methods are prone to bias and over-precision.
    • Adjusted indirect comparison, meta-regression, and logistic regression (for binary data) were identified as valid aggregate data approaches, though some require strong assumptions and increased sample sizes compared to direct comparisons.

    Conclusions:

    • Direct evidence from high-quality RCTs is paramount; indirect comparisons should be used cautiously as a secondary option due to potential bias.
    • The adjusted indirect comparison method, preferably with a random effects model, is recommended when indirect evidence is necessary.
    • Further research is needed to refine methods for continuous data, evaluate performance with large treatment effects, and clarify when to combine direct and indirect evidence.