Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
A methodological review of population-adjusted indirect comparisons reveals inconsistent reporting and suggests
Arnaud Serret-Larmande1, Belkacem Zenati2, Agnès Dechartres2
1INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Département de Santé Publique, Centre de Pharmacoépidémiologie, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France; ECSTRRA Team UMR-1153 INSERM, AP-HP Saint Louis Hospital, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Objectives:
Population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) were developed in the 2010s to allow for comparisons between two treatments evaluated in different trials while accounting for differences in patient characteristics if individual patient data (IPD) are available for only one trial. Such comparisons are increasingly used in market access applications when a pharmaceutical company compares its new treatment (with IPD available) to another treatment developed by a competitor (with only aggregated data available). This study aimed to describe the characteristics of these PAICs, assess their methodology, and describe the reported results.
Study Design And Setting:
Original articles reporting the use of at least one PAIC were searched on PubMed between January 1, 2010 and April 2, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data.
Results:
We included 133 publications reporting the results of 288 PAICs. Half of the articles were published on or after May 7, 2020, and 71 (53%) pertained to onco-hematology. The pharmaceutical industry was involved in 130 (98%) articles. Key methodological aspects were reported inconsistently, with only three articles adequately reporting all aspects. A total of 161 (56%) articles reported a statistically significant benefit for the treatment evaluated on IPD. Conversely, only one PAIC significantly favored the treatment evaluated on aggregated data.
Conclusion:
Although the number of published PAICs is increasing, the methodology and transparency need to be improved. Moreover, our study strongly suggests a reporting bias. This situation calls for strengthening guidelines to improve trust in PAIC results and thus their reliability in market access applications.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling 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...
Analysis of Population Pharmacokinetic Data

