Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2026
06:05
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality
Sarah Donegan1, Paula Williamson, Carrol Gamble
1Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Sarah.Donegan@liverpool.ac.uk
Plos One
|November 19, 2010
Summary
Indirect comparisons of medical interventions are valuable but often lack rigorous reporting of assumptions. This systematic review found that assessing and reporting these assumptions is crucial for improving the quality and interpretation of indirect comparisons.
Area of Science:
- Medical research methodology
- Evidence synthesis
- Comparative effectiveness research
Background:
- Indirect comparisons of interventions are increasingly used but lack standardized reporting guidelines.
- The quality of indirect comparisons depends heavily on methodology and the validity of underlying assumptions.
- There is a need to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to identify areas for improvement.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons of interventions.
- To identify common practices and deficiencies in reporting and applying indirect comparisons.
- To provide recommendations for improving the quality of indirect comparisons.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of published indirect comparisons using statistical methods.
- Inclusion criteria focused on reviews comparing clinical effectiveness using randomized controlled trials.
- Quality assessment criteria were developed and applied to 43 included reviews.
Main Results:
- Adequate methodology for indirect comparison was used in most reviews (41/43).
- Fewer reviews assessed similarity assumptions (19/43), statistical homogeneity (24/43), or causes of heterogeneity (12/43).
- Reporting of indirect evidence and caution in interpretation were inconsistent.
Conclusions:
- Underlying assumptions in indirect comparisons are not routinely explored or reported.
- Improving the quality of indirect comparisons requires better assessment and reporting of assumptions.
- Proposed quality criteria can aid authors in conducting and interpreting indirect comparisons.
Related Concept Videos
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:
01:15Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
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
Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
01:13Multiple Comparison Tests
Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
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...
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...
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Epidemiological study designs are fundamental tools for investigating the distribution, determinants, and control of health conditions in populations. They help researchers understand the relationships between exposures and outcomes, and they broadly fall into two categories: "observational" and "experimental" studies.
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.