[GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness].

Direct evidence comes from research that directly compares the interventions in which we are interested when applied to the populations in which we are interested and measures outcomes important to patients. Evidence can be indirect in one of four ways. First, patients may differ from those of interest (the term applicability is often used for this form of indirectness). Second, the intervention tested may differ from the intervention of interest. Decisions regarding indirectness of patients and interventions depend on an understanding of whether biological or social factors are sufficiently different that one might expect substantial differences in the magnitude of effect. Third, outcomes may differ from those of primary interest - for instance, surrogate outcomes that are not themselves important, but measured in the presumption that changes in the surrogate reflect changes in an outcome important to patients. A fourth type of indirectness, which is conceptually different from the first three, occurs when clinicians must choose between interventions that have not been tested in head to head comparisons. Making comparisons between treatments under these circumstances requires specific statistical methods and will be rated down in quality by one or two levels depending on the extent of differences between the patient populations, co-interventions, measurements of the outcome, and the methods of the trials of the candidate interventions against some other comparator.

[1]  Keiji Fukuda,et al.  WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines for pharmacological management of sporadic human infection with avian influenza A (H5N1) virus , 2006, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[2]  S D Walter,et al.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  D. Altman,et al.  Indirect comparison meta-analysis of aspirin therapy after coronary surgery , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  U. Siebert,et al.  Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[6]  J. Geddes,et al.  Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis , 2009, The Lancet.

[7]  Elie A Akl,et al.  Low-molecular-weight heparin vs unfractionated heparin for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  D G Altman,et al.  Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[9]  A. Sebba Comparing non-vertebral fracture risk reduction with osteoporosis therapies: looking beneath the surface , 2009, Osteoporosis International.

[10]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.

[11]  Juliette Martin,et al.  Statin therapy-evidence beyond lipid lowering contributing to plaque stability. , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Deborah M Caldwell,et al.  Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice; Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  A. Tenenbaum,et al.  Cardiovascular Diabetology BioMed Central Editorial Statins research unfinished saga: desirability versus feasibility , 2005 .

[15]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. , 2007, The Journal of rheumatology.

[16]  Winfried März,et al.  Atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing hemodialysis. , 2005 .