Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence

How can policy makers decide which of five treatments is the best? Standard meta-analysis provides little help but evidence based decisions are possible

[1]  A Whitehead,et al.  Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta‐analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  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.

[4]  S G Thompson,et al.  Investigating underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  M Sculpher,et al.  A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[6]  M Sculpher,et al.  Clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[7]  M. Zwahlen,et al.  Clinical efficacy of antiretroviral combination therapy based on protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: indirect comparison of controlled trials , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  David R. Jones,et al.  An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment , 1999, BMJ.

[9]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines , 1999, BMJ.

[10]  J. Boura,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction : a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials , 2022 .

[11]  Thomas Lumley,et al.  Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. , 2003, JAMA.

[12]  A Haycox,et al.  Early thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[13]  G. Melandri.  Primary angioplasty or thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction? , 2003, The Lancet.

[14]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Meta-analysis of prophylactic treatments against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and toxoplasma encephalitis in HIV-infected patients. , 1997, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes and human retrovirology : official publication of the International Retrovirology Association.

[15]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Meta-analysis of Multitreatment Studies , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[16]  J. Boura,et al.  Primary coronary angioplasty versus thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction , 2003, The Lancet.

[17]  K. Channer.  Primary angioplasty or thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction? , 2003, The Lancet.

[18]  T. Lumley.  Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

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

[20]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  G. Lu,et al.  Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  M. Rawlins.  In pursuit of quality: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence , 1999, The Lancet.