ReviewEpidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evidence Synthesis via Indirect Treatment Comparisons in the European Framework of Joint Clinical Assessment.
Review in Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The application of the Health Technology Assessment Regulation (HTAR) gives way to joint European work, such as the Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA). This requires the definition of a PICO (Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome) question representative of all the member states of the European Union. The key to answering the PICO will be the synthesis of evidence through direct comparisons when there are randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including the same comparators, and via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) when comparators differ across RCTs. The aim of this report is to provide a synthesized and clear methodological framework to guide those stakeholders involved in JCAs when interpreting the results of ITCs, including descriptions on: (1) assumptions associated with ITCs; (2) how to select the method for ITC; (3) strengths and limitations associated with the methods; and (4) basics for understanding the method for ITC. This methodological framework could help those health care institutions, patient associations, consumer organizations, health-related nongovernmental organizations, health technology developers, and healthcare professionals involved in JCAs to better understand ITCs and incorporate this evidence into decision-making.
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.