Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026

Strategies for Assessing Autistic-Like Behaviors in Mice
Published on: September 20, 2024
Arbitrated Indirect Treatment Comparisons
1Data and Statistical Sciences, AbbVie Inc., 1 North Waukegan Rd, North Chicago, IL, 60064, USA. yixin.fang@abbvie.com.
None:
Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) has been increasingly employed in health technology assessments (HTA). By reweighting subjects from a trial with individual participant data (IPD) to match the covariate summary statistics of another trial with only aggregate data (AgD), MAIC facilitates the estimation of a treatment effect defined with respect to the AgD trial population. This manuscript introduces a new class of methods, termed arbitrated indirect treatment comparisons, designed to address the "MAIC paradox"-a phenomenon highlighted by Jiang et al. (Res Synth Methods 16(3):569-574, 2025). The MAIC paradox arises when different sponsors, analyzing the same data, arrive at conflicting conclusions regarding which treatment is more effective. The underlying issue is that each sponsor implicitly targets a different population. To resolve this inconsistency, the proposed methods focus on estimating treatment effects in a common target population, specifically chosen to be the overlap population.
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Blind Procedures
EDTA: Indirect and Alkalimetric Titration
Blinding
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
