IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0011054.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Donegan
  • Paula Williamson
  • Carrol Gamble
  • Catrin Tudur-Smith

Abstract

Background: The indirect comparison of two interventions can be valuable in many situations. However, the quality of an indirect comparison will depend on several factors including the chosen methodology and validity of underlying assumptions. Published indirect comparisons are increasingly more common in the medical literature, but as yet, there are no published recommendations of how they should be reported. Our aim is to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to add to existing empirical data suggesting that improvements can be made when reporting and applying indirect comparisons. Methodology/Findings: Reviews applying statistical methods to indirectly compare the clinical effectiveness of two interventions using randomised controlled trials were eligible. We searched (1966–2008) Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane library, and Medline. Full review publications were assessed for eligibility. Specific criteria to assess quality were developed and applied. Forty-three reviews were included. Adequate methodology was used to calculate the indirect comparison in 41 reviews. Nineteen reviews assessed the similarity assumption using sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression. Eleven reviews compared trial-level characteristics. Twenty-four reviews assessed statistical homogeneity. Twelve reviews investigated causes of heterogeneity. Seventeen reviews included direct and indirect evidence for the same comparison; six reviews assessed consistency. One review combined both evidence types. Twenty-five reviews urged caution in interpretation of results, and 24 reviews indicated when results were from indirect evidence by stating this term with the result. Conclusions: This review shows that the underlying assumptions are not routinely explored or reported when undertaking indirect comparisons. We recommend, therefore, that the quality of indirect comparisons should be improved, in particular, by assessing assumptions and reporting the assessment methods applied. We propose that the quality criteria applied in this article may provide a basis to help review authors carry out indirect comparisons and to aid appropriate interpretation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Donegan & Paula Williamson & Carrol Gamble & Catrin Tudur-Smith, 2010. "Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011054
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011054
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011054&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0011054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Chaimani & Julian P T Higgins & Dimitris Mavridis & Panagiota Spyridonos & Georgia Salanti, 2013. "Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Shuyan Gu & Jihao Shi & Zhiliu Tang & Monika Sawhney & Huimei Hu & Lizheng Shi & Vivian Fonseca & Hengjin Dong, 2015. "Comparison of Glucose Lowering Effect of Metformin and Acarbose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Hwanhee Hong & Bradley P. Carlin & Tatyana A. Shamliyan & Jean F. Wyman & Rema Ramakrishnan & François Sainfort & Robert L. Kane, 2013. "Comparing Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches for Multiple Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 702-714, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011054. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.