Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22970794›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2012

Simulation evaluation of statistical properties of methods for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons.

Fujian Song, Allan Clark, Max O Bachmann, Jim Maas

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Insulin regimens for adults living with type 1 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fujian SongNorwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK. Fujian.Song@uea.ac.uk
Allan Clark
Max O Bachmann
Jim Maas
University of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndirect treatment comparison (ITC) and mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) have been increasingly used in network meta-analyses. This simulation study comprehensively investigated statistical properties and performances of commonly used ITC and MTC methods, including simple ITC (the Bucher method), frequentist and Bayesian MTC methods.

methodsA simple network of three sets of two-arm trials with a closed loop was simulated. Different simulation scenarios were based on different number of trials, assumed treatment effects, extent of heterogeneity, bias and inconsistency. The performance of the ITC and MTC methods was measured by the type I error, statistical power, observed bias and mean squared error (MSE).

resultsWhen there are no biases in primary studies, all ITC and MTC methods investigated are on average unbiased. Depending on the extent and direction of biases in different sets of studies, ITC and MTC methods may be more or less biased than direct treatment comparisons (DTC). Of the methods investigated, the simple ITC method has the largest mean squared error (MSE). The DTC is superior to the ITC in terms of statistical power and MSE. Under the simulated circumstances in which there are no systematic biases and inconsistencies, the performances of MTC methods are generally better than the performance of the corresponding DTC methods. For inconsistency detection in network meta-analysis, the methods evaluated are on average unbiased. The statistical power of commonly used methods for detecting inconsistency is very low.

conclusionsThe available methods for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons have different advantages and limitations, depending on whether data analysed satisfies underlying assumptions. To choose the most valid statistical methods for research synthesis, an appropriate assessment of primary studies included in evidence network is required.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsData Interpretation, StatisticalResearch DesignBayes TheoremBiasComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID22970794
PMCPMC3524036
OpenAlexW2136352805

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.