Literature DB >> 23740513

Critical evaluation of mixed treatment comparison meta-analyses using examples assessing antidepressants and opioid detoxification treatments.

Alexander Schacht1, Yulia Dyachkova, Richard James Walton.   

Abstract

Comparing multiple treatment options using meta-analytical methods requires complex statistical methods called mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs). Such methods offer the possibility to summarize data from many clinical trials comparing the different available options. However, those methods are based on a number of assumptions and inherent difficulties that are discussed and illustrated with examples from the psychiatric literature to help readers to understand the strengths and weaknesses of these methods. This review will help enable readers to critically appraise the methodology and results of publications that use MTCs.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23740513      PMCID: PMC6878270          DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1381

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res        ISSN: 1049-8931            Impact factor:   4.035


  24 in total

Review 1.  Publication and related biases.

Authors:  F Song; A J Eastwood; S Gilbody; L Duley; A J Sutton
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.014

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.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  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

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

Review 6.  Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions.

Authors:  F Song; I Harvey; R Lilford
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a double-blind clinical trial.

Authors:  David J Goldstein; Craig Mallinckrodt; Yili Lu; Mark A Demitrack
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.384

8.  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Dias; N J Welton; D M Caldwell; A E Ades
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 10.  Recent developments in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alexander J Sutton; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.