ArticleResearch synthesis methods2022
Parametric G-computation for compatible indirect treatment comparisons with limited individual patient data.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tislelizumab in Second-Line Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Literature Review and Simulated Treatment Comparisons.Advances in therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Integrating Meta-Analysis Into a Specific Study (InMASS) for Estimating the Target-Population Average Treatment Effect.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- Oral Semaglutide 25 mg Versus Orforglipron 36 mg in Obesity: A Population-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Aligning Estimands to Strengthen the Credibility of Network Meta-Analysis: Implications for Indirect Treatment Comparisons.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Can We Trust PAICs in Rare Diseases? Methodological Challenges and Limitations.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Regression augmented weighting adjustment for indirect comparisons in health decision modelling.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- A Framework for Reliable, Transparent, and Reproducible Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Defining Biological and Clinical Plausibility: The DICSA Framework for Protocolized Assessment in Survival Extrapolations Across Therapeutic Areas.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Review
- Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of selpercatinib and pralsetinib inFuture oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in unanchored population-adjusted indirect comparisons.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Effect modification and non-collapsibility together may lead to conflicting treatment decisions: A review of marginal and conditional estimands and recommendations for decision-making.Research synthesis methods · 2025Review
- Model-based standardization using multiple imputation.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Belimumab versus anifrolumab in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: an indirect comparison of clinical response at 52 weeks.Lupus science & medicine · 2023Article
- Letter to the Editor: indirect treatment comparison of anifrolumab efficacy versus belimumab in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Article
- Some considerations on target estimands for health technology assessment.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Parametric G-computation for compatible indirect treatment comparisons with limited individual patient data.Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
- Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.