The summaries are free for public
use. The Chronic Liver Disease
Foundation will continue to add and
archive summaries of articles deemed
relevant to CLDF by the Board of
Trustees and its Advisors.
Abstract Details
Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection
Druyts E, Thorlund K, Humphreys S, Lion M, Cooper CL, Mills EJ. Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jun 20;5:173-83. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S44273. Print 2013.
Source
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses are increasingly being used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of interventions when head-to-head data do not exist. ITC meta-analyses can be conducted using simple methodology to compare two interventions. MTC meta-analyses can be conducted using more complex methodology, often employing Bayesian approaches, to compare multiple interventions. As the number of ITC and MTC meta-analyses increase, it is common to find multiple analyses evaluating the same interventions in similar therapeutic areas. Depending on the choice of the methodological approach, the conclusions about relative treatment efficacy may differ. Such situations create uncertainty for decision makers. An illustration of this is provided by four ITC and MTC meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of boceprevir and telaprevir for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. This paper examines why these evaluations provide discordant results by examining specific methodological issues that can strengthen or weaken inferences.