ReviewBMJ open2025
Selection of indirect treatment comparisons for health technology assessments: a practical guide for health economics and outcomes research scientists and clinicians.
Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pegcetacoplan Versus Iptacopan for the Treatment of Patients with C3 Glomerulopathy: Indirect Treatment Comparisons.Advances in therapy · 2026Trial
- The European Union's Health Technology Assessment Regulation (EU-HTA R) Will Prosper Despite Major Setbacks.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Between Rigor and Relevance: Why the EU HTA Guidelines on Indirect Comparisons Miss the Mark.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Evidence Synthesis via Indirect Treatment Comparisons in the European Framework of Joint Clinical Assessment.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Indirect Comparison of Nipocalimab Versus Efgartigimod and Rozanolixizumab in the Treatment of Generalized Myasthenia Gravis.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Cytisinicline and Varenicline for Smoking Cessation: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC).Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Calibrated non-inferiority margin: a new pragmatic method to account for population shift in stroke trials.European stroke journal · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etrasimod Compared With Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Patients with Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis in Spain.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) bodies evaluate the clinical and economic values of health interventions to inform healthcare decision-making. They face the challenge of lacking head-to-head randomised clinical trial data against the standard of care. Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods are often used and accepted by HTA bodies worldwide, but there are numerous options with various and inconsistent terminologies. The selection and application of ITC methods are complex from methodological and clinical perspectives.
objectivesThis article (1) provides a comprehensive overview of ITC methods by clarifying used terminologies, including fundamental assumptions, frameworks, strengths, limitations, applications and specific considerations; (2) examines recent ITC guidelines with recommendations or preferences from major HTA bodies and (3) guides health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) scientists and clinicians in the strategic selection of ITC methods with case examples.
methodsThe authors conducted a rapid review to identify the literature related to ITC methods and ITC-relevant HTA guidelines in various databases between 2009 and April 2024.
conclusionsComprehensive knowledge of the ITC methods landscape and the evolving ITC-relevant HTA guidelines are essential for ITC methods selection. Effective communication/collaboration between HEOR scientists and clinicians ensures that the selection and justification of ITC methods are robust for HTA submissions.
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.