Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 5 (11), e11054

Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality

Affiliations
Review

Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality

Sarah Donegan et al. PLoS One.

Abstract

Background: The indirect comparison of two interventions can be valuable in many situations. However, the quality of an indirect comparison will depend on several factors including the chosen methodology and validity of underlying assumptions. Published indirect comparisons are increasingly more common in the medical literature, but as yet, there are no published recommendations of how they should be reported. Our aim is to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to add to existing empirical data suggesting that improvements can be made when reporting and applying indirect comparisons.

Methodology/findings: Reviews applying statistical methods to indirectly compare the clinical effectiveness of two interventions using randomised controlled trials were eligible. We searched (1966-2008) Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane library, and Medline. Full review publications were assessed for eligibility. Specific criteria to assess quality were developed and applied. Forty-three reviews were included. Adequate methodology was used to calculate the indirect comparison in 41 reviews. Nineteen reviews assessed the similarity assumption using sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression. Eleven reviews compared trial-level characteristics. Twenty-four reviews assessed statistical homogeneity. Twelve reviews investigated causes of heterogeneity. Seventeen reviews included direct and indirect evidence for the same comparison; six reviews assessed consistency. One review combined both evidence types. Twenty-five reviews urged caution in interpretation of results, and 24 reviews indicated when results were from indirect evidence by stating this term with the result.

Conclusions: This review shows that the underlying assumptions are not routinely explored or reported when undertaking indirect comparisons. We recommend, therefore, that the quality of indirect comparisons should be improved, in particular, by assessing assumptions and reporting the assessment methods applied. We propose that the quality criteria applied in this article may provide a basis to help review authors carry out indirect comparisons and to aid appropriate interpretation.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Selection process for reviews. Abbreviations: RCTs (randomised controlled trials).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Frequency of published reviews including indirect comparisons, by year of publication.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 45 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(5):455–463. - PubMed
    1. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technology Assessment. 2005;9(26):1–134. - PubMed
    1. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1997;50(6):683–91. - PubMed
    1. Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics Notes: Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. Bmj. 2003;326(7382):219. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Feedback