ArticleClinical epidemiology2013
Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Root canal filling materials for endodontic treatment of necrotic primary teeth: a network meta-analysis.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Article
- Vibration of effects from diverse inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical choices: 9216 different ways to perform an indirect comparison meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2019Article
- The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.The Milbank quarterly · 2016Article
- Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2015Article
- Comparative gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis-reply to Pazianas and Abrahamsen.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses are increasingly being used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of interventions when head-to-head data do not exist. ITC meta-analyses can be conducted using simple methodology to compare two interventions. MTC meta-analyses can be conducted using more complex methodology, often employing Bayesian approaches, to compare multiple interventions. As the number of ITC and MTC meta-analyses increase, it is common to find multiple analyses evaluating the same interventions in similar therapeutic areas. Depending on the choice of the methodological approach, the conclusions about relative treatment efficacy may differ. Such situations create uncertainty for decision makers. An illustration of this is provided by four ITC and MTC meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of boceprevir and telaprevir for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. This paper examines why these evaluations provide discordant results by examining specific methodological issues that can strengthen or weaken inferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.