Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparison and Network Meta-Analysis Studies Report 2

Published Aug 2011

Citation

Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP,. et al. Conducting Indirect-Treatment-Comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices—Part 2. Value Health 2011;14:429-37.

Abstract

Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct evidence and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than traditional meta-analysis. This report from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on technical aspects of conducting network meta-analyses (our use of this term includes most methods that involve meta-analysis in the context of a network of evidence). We start with a discussion of strategies for developing networks of evidence. Next we briefly review assumptions of network meta-analysis. Then we focus on the statistical analysis of the data: objectives, models (fixed-effects and random-effects), frequentist versus Bayesian approaches, and model validation. A checklist highlights key components of network meta-analysis, and substantial examples illustrate indirect treatment comparisons (both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) and network meta-analysis. A further section discusses eight key areas for future research.

Keywords: Bayesian meta-analysis, direct treatment comparison, evidence network, frequentist meta-analysis, heterogeneity, inconsistency, indirect treatment comparison, mixed treatment comparison.

Copyright © 2017, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Full Content

Download PDF

Related Content

Questions?

For any questions about this report please contact us.

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×