Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2026
The Adjuvant Efficacy of Angong Niuhuang Pill in the Treatment of Viral Encephalitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Published on: April 19, 2024
Incorporating multiple interventions in meta-analysis: an evaluation of the mixed treatment comparison with the
Christopher O'Regan1, Isabella Ghement, Oghenowede Eyawo
1Department of Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. christopher_oregan@merck.com
Background:
Comparing the effectiveness of interventions is now a requirement for regulatory approval in several countries. It also aids in clinical and public health decision-making. However, in the absence of head-to-head randomized trials (RCTs), determining the relative effectiveness of interventions is challenging. Several methodological options are now available. We aimed to determine the comparative validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons of RCTs with the mixed treatment comparison approach.
Methods:
Using systematic searching, we identified all meta-analyses evaluating more than 3 interventions for a similar disease state with binary outcomes. We abstracted data on each clinical trial including population n and outcomes. We conducted fixed effects meta-analysis of each intervention versus mutual comparator and then applied the adjusted indirect comparison. We conducted a mixed treatment meta-analysis on all trials and compared the point estimates and 95% confidence/credible intervals (CIs/CrIs) to determine important differences.
Results:
We included data from 7 reviews that met our inclusion criteria, allowing a total of 51 comparisons. According to the a priori consistency rule, we found 2 examples where the analytic comparisons were statistically significant using the mixed treatment comparison over the adjusted indirect comparisons and 1 example where this was vice versa. We found 6 examples where the direction of effect differed according to the indirect comparison method chosen and we found 9 examples where the confidence intervals were importantly different between approaches.
Conclusion:
In most analyses, the adjusted indirect comparison yields estimates of relative effectiveness equal to the mixed treatment comparison. In less complex indirect comparisons, where all studies share a mutual comparator, both approaches yield similar benefits. As comparisons become more complex, the mixed treatment comparison may be favoured.
Related Concept Videos
01:25Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
01:13Multiple Comparison Tests
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:15Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
01:29Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions