Literature DB >> 23244817

Rank reversal in indirect comparisons.

Edward C Norton1, Morgen M Miller, Jason J Wang, Kasey Coyne, Lawrence C Kleinman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe rank reversal as a source of inconsistent interpretation intrinsic to indirect comparison (Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epi 1997;50:683-91) of treatments and to propose best practice.
METHODS: We prove our main points with intuition, examples, graphs, and mathematical proofs. We also provide software and discuss implications for research and policy.
RESULTS: When comparing treatments by indirect means and sorting them by effect size, three common measures of comparison (risk ratio, risk difference, and odds ratio) may lead to vastly different rankings.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of risk measure matters when making indirect comparisons of treatments. The choice should depend primarily on the study design and the conceptual framework for that study.
Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23244817      PMCID: PMC3527821          DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  13 in total

1.  Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data.

Authors:  S D Walter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.437

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

Authors:  Fujian Song; Douglas G Altman; Anne-Marie Glenny; Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-03-01

3.  Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Authors:  Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Estimating standardized risk differences from odds ratios.

Authors:  S Greenland; P Holland
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  H C Bucher; G H Guyatt; L E Griffith; S D Walter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data; applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix.

Authors:  J CORNFIELD
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1951-06       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Odds ratios should be avoided when events are common.

Authors:  D G Altman; J J Deeks; D L Sackett
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-11-07

8.  Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.

Authors:  A M Glenny; D G Altman; F Song; C Sakarovitch; J J Deeks; R D'Amico; M Bradburn; A J Eastwood
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 9.  Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 10.  Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for treating essential hypertension.

Authors:  David B Matchar; Douglas C McCrory; Lori A Orlando; Manesh R Patel; Uptal D Patel; Meenal B Patwardhan; Benjamin Powers; Gregory P Samsa; Rebecca N Gray
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-11-05       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  5 in total

1.  Absolute or relative effects? Arm-based synthesis of trial data.

Authors:  S Dias; A E Ades
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 5.273

2.  Network Meta-analysis to Synthesize Evidence for Decision Making in Cardiovascular Research.

Authors:  Leonardo Roever; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Empirical evidence about inconsistency among studies in a pair-wise meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kirsty M Rhodes; Rebecca M Turner; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 5.273

4.  Meta-research metrics matter: letter regarding article "indirect tolerability comparison of Deutetrabenazine and Tetrabenazine for Huntington disease".

Authors:  Filipe B Rodrigues; Gonçalo S Duarte; João Costa; Joaquim J Ferreira; Edward J Wild
Journal:  J Clin Mov Disord       Date:  2017-11-22

5.  Agreement between ranking metrics in network meta-analysis: an empirical study.

Authors:  Virginia Chiocchia; Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Theodoros Papakonstantinou; Matthias Egger; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.