Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35485582›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2022

Parametric G-computation for compatible indirect treatment comparisons with limited individual patient data.

Antonio Remiro-Azócar, Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Model-based standardization using multiple imputation.BMC medical research methodology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison.BMC medical research methodology · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Antonio Remiro-AzócarDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2877-2315
Anna HeathDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Gianluca BaioDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Canada Research Chairs Anna Heath: Statistical Trial DesignEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Antonio Remiro-Azocar: PhD scholarshipNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Anna Heath: Discovery Grant Program RGPIN-2021-03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is based on propensity score weighting, which is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average the conditional estimate over the relevant population to recover a compatible marginal treatment effect. We propose a marginalization method based on parametric G-computation that can be easily applied where the outcome regression is a generalized linear model or a Cox model. The approach views the covariate adjustment regression as a nuisance model and separates its estimation from the evaluation of the marginal treatment effect of interest. The method can accommodate a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle and benchmarks the method's performance against MAIC and the conventional outcome regression. Parametric G-computation achieves more precise and more accurate estimates than MAIC, particularly when covariate overlap is poor, and yields unbiased marginal treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. Furthermore, the marginalized regression-adjusted estimates provide greater precision and accuracy than the conditional estimates produced by the conventional outcome regression, which are systematically biased because the measure of effect is non-collapsible.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansPropensity ScoreProportional Hazards Modelscausal inferencehealth technology assessmentindirect treatment comparisonmarginal treatment effectoutcome regressionstandardization

Identifiers

PMID35485582
PMCPMC9790405

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.