Published 3 April 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1147
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1147

Research

Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews

¹ Faculty of Health, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, ² School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, ³ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, ⁴ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford

Objective To investigate basic assumptions and other methodological problems in the application of indirect comparison in systematic reviews of competing healthcare interventions.

Design Survey of published systematic reviews.

Inclusion criteria Systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2007 in which an indirect approach had been explicitly used.

Data extraction Identified reviews were assessed for comprehensiveness of the literature search, method for indirect comparison, and whether assumptions about similarity and consistency were explicitly mentioned.

Results The survey included 88 review reports. In 13 reviews, indirect comparison was informal. Results from different trials were naively compared without using a common control in six reviews. Adjusted indirect comparison was usually done using classic frequentist methods (n=49) or more complex methods (n=18). The key assumption of trial similarity was explicitly mentioned in only 40 of the 88 reviews. The consistency assumption was not explicit in most cases where direct and indirect evidence were compared or combined (18/30). Evidence from head to head comparison trials was not systematically searched for or not included in nine cases.

Conclusions Identified methodological problems were an unclear understanding of underlying assumptions, inappropriate search and selection of relevant trials, use of inappropriate or flawed methods, lack of objective and validated methods to assess or improve trial similarity, and inadequate comparison or inappropriate combination of direct and indirect evidence. Adequate understanding of basic assumptions underlying indirect and mixed treatment comparison is crucial to resolve these methodological problems.

Appendix 1 PubMed search strategy

Appendix 2 Characteristics of identified reports

Appendix 3 Identified studies

References of included studies

© Song et al 2009
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence

Deborah M Caldwell, A E Ades, and J P T Higgins
BMJ 2005 331: 897-900. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses

Fujian Song, Douglas G Altman, Anne-Marie Glenny, and Jonathan J Deeks
BMJ 2003 326: 472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Statistics Notes: Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates

Douglas G Altman and J Martin Bland
BMJ 2003 326: 219. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>