Estimating the Power of Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study
Open Access
- 21 January 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 6 (1), e16237
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016237
Abstract
Indirect comparisons are becoming increasingly popular for evaluating medical treatments that have not been compared head-to-head in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). While indirect methods have grown in popularity and acceptance, little is known about the fragility of confidence interval estimations and hypothesis testing relying on this method. We present the findings of a simulation study that examined the fragility of indirect confidence interval estimation and hypothesis testing relying on the adjusted indirect method. Our results suggest that, for the settings considered in this study, indirect confidence interval estimation suffers from under-coverage while indirect hypothesis testing suffers from low power in the presence of moderate to large between-study heterogeneity. In addition, the risk of overestimation is large when the indirect comparison of interest relies on just one trial for one of the two direct comparisons. Indirect comparisons typically suffer from low power. The risk of imprecision is increased when comparisons are unbalanced.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Incorporating multiple interventions in meta-analysis: an evaluation of the mixed treatment comparison with the adjusted indirect comparisonTrials, 2009
- Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviewsBMJ, 2009
- Evaluation of networks of randomized trialsStatistical Methods in Medical Research, 2008
- Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis.Psychological Methods, 2008
- Safety of drug-eluting stents: demystifying network meta-analysisThe Lancet, 2007
- Indirect comparisons of competing interventionsHealth Technology Assessment, 2005
- Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisonsStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- A comparison of statistical methods for meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2001
- The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1997
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986