2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How Valuable are Multiple Treatment Comparison Methods in Evidence-Based Health-Care Evaluation?

Abstract: The MTC approach to synthesis allows the evidence base on clinical effectiveness to be treated as a coherent whole, include more data, and sometimes relax the assumptions made in the pair-wise approaches. However, MTC models are necessarily more complex than those developed for pair-wise meta-analysis and thus could be seen as less transparent. Therefore, it is important that model details and the assumptions made are carefully reported alongside the results.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
56
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
56
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…148 NWMA involves analysing this network as a whole, by assuming consistency across treatment effects, so that a given pairwise comparison B vs C can be derived from trials against a common comparator (A vs B and A vs C trials) even if no B vs C trials exist. 149 NWMA has become increasing popular in decision-making contexts because choosing among more than two treatments requires all pairwise treatment effects to be consistent in this way (the true treatment effects in the decision problem will always be consistent 150,151 ). Given their widespread use in Health Technology Assessment, NWMA commonly uses aggregate data, although there are examples illustrating the value of this approach when individual participant data (IPD) is available, particularly in understanding participant-level effect modification.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…148 NWMA involves analysing this network as a whole, by assuming consistency across treatment effects, so that a given pairwise comparison B vs C can be derived from trials against a common comparator (A vs B and A vs C trials) even if no B vs C trials exist. 149 NWMA has become increasing popular in decision-making contexts because choosing among more than two treatments requires all pairwise treatment effects to be consistent in this way (the true treatment effects in the decision problem will always be consistent 150,151 ). Given their widespread use in Health Technology Assessment, NWMA commonly uses aggregate data, although there are examples illustrating the value of this approach when individual participant data (IPD) is available, particularly in understanding participant-level effect modification.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…148 NWMA involves analysing this network as a whole, by assuming consistency across treatment effects, so that a given pairwise comparison B vs C can be derived from trials against a common comparator (A vs B and A vs C trials) even if no B vs C trials exist. 149 NWMA has become increasing popular in decision-making contexts because choosing among more than two treatments requires all pairwise treatment effects to be consistent in this way (the true treatment effects in the decision problem will always be consistent 150,151 Network meta-analysis extends this analysis by introducing the consistency assumption asshown by equation (6) 1,where 1, j d is defined as the treatment effect of any treatment j in the network compared to a reference treatment (such as standard care), and active(t) and control(t) are the active and control treatments in trial t, respectively. The consistency assumption can further be applied to the t  parameters as shown by equation (7) 258 1 …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The MTC analysis produces tighter credibility intervals (CrI, analogous to the confidence interval of frequentist methodology), which implies greater precision of the estimates than the direct comparison analysis. 17 For the purpose of analysis, the 6 stent types were defined: BMS, SES, PES, EES, ZES, and ZES-R. The primary analysis compared each individual DES to BMS, which was used as reference.…”
Section: Mixed-treatment Comparisonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additional interventions (such as placebo or no treatment) may provide useful information for the treatments of interest via indirect evidence. These additional interventions are expected to increase the precision of the results (36), connect a sparse network or help estimate heterogeneity, among other reasons. The concept of joint randomizability should apply to all treatments included in the network.…”
Section: Illustrative Cer Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%