Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparison and Network Meta-analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons—Part 2
نویسنده
چکیده
David C. Hoaglin PhD, United BioSource Corporation, Lexington, MA, USA Neil Hawkins PhD, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK Jeroen Jansen PhD, Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA David A. Scott MA, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK Robbin Itzler PhD, Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA, USA Joseph C. Cappelleri PhD, MPH, Pfizer Inc, New London, CT, USA Cornelis Boersma PhD, MSc, University of Groningen / HECTA, Groningen, Netherlands David Thompson PhD, i3 Innovus, Medford, MA, USA Kay M. Larholt ScD, HealthCore, Inc., Andover, MA, USA Mireya Diaz PhD, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA Annabel Barrett BSc, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Windlesham, Surrey, UK
منابع مشابه
Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.
Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network ...
متن کاملInterpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1.
Evidence-based health-care decision making requires comparisons of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized, controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best choice(s) of treatment. Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case...
متن کاملIndirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report.
Despite the great realized or potential value of network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial evidence to inform health care decision making, many decision makers might not be familiar with these techniques. The Task Force developed a consensus-based 26-item questionnaire to help decision makers assess the relevance and credibility of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-anal...
متن کاملInterpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons & Network Meta-Analysis for Health Care Decision-making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Part 1
1 Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA 2 Center for Health Economics and Science Policy, United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA 3 Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research & Policy Program, School of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, University of Washington, USA 4 Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA, USA 5 Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Windlesham, Surrey, UK 6 Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK 7 Canad...
متن کاملADDIS: an automated way to do network meta-analysis
In evidence-based medicine, meta-analysis is an important statistical technique for combining the findings from independent clinical trials which have attempted to answer similar questions about treatment’s clinical effectiveness [1]. Normally, such meta-analyses are pair-wise treatment comparisons, which only include the comparisons between two treatments, e.g. treatment A and placebo. When ad...
متن کامل