ArticlePloS one2017
Mix and match. A simulation study on the impact of mixed-treatment comparison methods on health-economic outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-analytic cost-effectiveness (CE) models combine many parameters, often obtained after meta-analysis.
aimWe compared different methods of mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) to combine transition and event probabilities derived from several trials, especially with respect to health-economic (HE) outcomes like (quality adjusted) life years and costs.
methodsTrials were drawn from a simulated reference population, comparing two of four fictitious interventions. The goal was to estimate the CE between two of these. The amount of heterogeneity between trials was varied in scenarios. Parameter estimates were combined using direct comparison, MTC methods proposed by Song and Puhan, and Bayesian generalized linear fixed effects (GLMFE) and random effects models (GLMRE). Parameters were entered into a Markov model. Parameters and HE outcomes were compared with the reference population using coverage, statistical power, bias and mean absolute deviation (MAD) as performance indicators. Each analytical step was repeated 1,000 times.
resultsThe direct comparison was outperformed by the MTC methods on all indicators, Song's method yielded low bias and MAD, but uncertainty was overestimated. Puhan's method had low bias and MAD and did not overestimate uncertainty. GLMFE generally had the lowest bias and MAD, regardless of the amount of heterogeneity, but uncertainty was overestimated. GLMRE showed large bias and MAD and overestimated uncertainty. Song's and Puhan's methods lead to the least amount of uncertainty, reflected in the shape of the CE acceptability curve. GLMFE showed slightly more uncertainty.
conclusionsCombining direct and indirect evidence is superior to using only direct evidence. Puhan's method and GLMFE are preferred.
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.