ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025
Is the Use of Unanchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Always Superior to Naïve Indirect Comparison on Survival Outcomes? A Simulation Study.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. 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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and naïve indirect comparison (NIC) under a wide range of data scenarios on survival outcome.
methodsA simulation study included 729 (3
resultsMAIC yielded relatively unbiased estimates of relative treatment effect compared with NIC in most scenarios, with better coverage and MSE but higher ESE. None of the situational variables had a significant impact on the bias and coverage of MAIC. However, increasing IPD sample size and covariate overlap significantly reduced the ESE and MSE of MAIC. In scenarios with low covariate overlap and high covariate strength, the bias of MAIC was larger and even greater than that of NIC.
conclusionsThe performance of MAIC consistently demonstrates advantage over NIC across various scenarios. MAIC often provides more unbiased estimates and achieves confidence interval coverage close to nominal values compared with NIC. While MAIC may exhibit higher ESE in specific scenarios, this additional uncertainty can offer a more accurate reflection of variability, enhancing the robustness of the results. Researchers should thoroughly comprehend the influencing factors and interactions affecting the performance of these methods and judiciously apply research findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39988641What 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.