title: Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.
abstract: Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct evidence and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than traditional meta-analysis. This report from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on technical aspects of conducting network meta-analyses (our use of this term includes most methods that involve meta-analysis in the context of a network of evidence). We start with a discussion of strategies for developing networks of evidence. Next we briefly review assumptions of network meta-analysis. Then we focus on the statistical analysis of the data: objectives, models (fixed-effects and random-effects), frequentist versus Bayesian approaches, and model validation. A checklist highlights key components of network meta-analysis, and substantial examples illustrate indirect treatment comparisons (both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) and network meta-analysis. A further section discusses eight key areas for future research.
authors.affiliation: dchoaglin@gmail.com
authors.forename: David C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Hoaglin
authors.forename: Neil
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Hawkins
authors.forename: Jeroen P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Jansen
authors.forename: David A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Scott
authors.forename: Robbin
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Itzler
authors.forename: Joseph C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Cappelleri
authors.forename: Cornelis
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Boersma
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Thompson
authors.forename: Kay M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Larholt
authors.forename: Mireya
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Diaz
authors.forename: Annabel
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Barrett
mesh_terms: D026683:Advisory Committees / Q000592:standards*; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000592:standards; D017850:Economics, Pharmaceutical / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards; D058028:Research Report / Q000592:standards*; D016896:Treatment Outcome