ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2024
The Importance of Clinical Context and Consistency in Methodology When Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons (MAICs) to Compare Outcomes.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized Treatment of Hemophilia: Matching Therapies to Patient Needs in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.Drugs · 2026Review
- Extravascular distribution of factor IX-review of experimental and clinical evidence, and relevance for hemophilia B replacement therapy.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemophilia A is rare, which makes large, randomized, controlled, statistically driven, head-to-head comparison trials difficult. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) are validated statistical tools designed to help make the results of non-comparative trials more comparable. The purpose of this commentary is to provide an insight into the MAIC method, in order to assist the hemophilia community with interpretation of MAIC data. It includes a comparison of the findings from previously published MAICs comparing recombinant factor replacement options and their methodologies. As MAICs are being used more often to compare treatment options for patients with hemophilia A, it is paramount that robust and consistent methodologies for cross-trial comparisons are used and that all efficacy analysis findings are linked to factor utilization.
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.