Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21085712›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2010

Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality.

Sarah Donegan, Paula Williamson, Carrol Gamble, Catrin Tudur-Smith

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Antimicrobial drugs for treating cholera.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah DoneganCentre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Sarah.Donegan@liverpool.ac.uk
Paula Williamson
Carrol Gamble
Catrin Tudur-Smith

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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/

findingsReviews 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.

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

Matched-Pair AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID21085712
PMCPMC2978085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.