How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis

Edward J. Mills, John P A Ioannidis, Kristian Thorlund, Holger J. Schünemann, Milo A. Puhan, Gordon H. Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions. The methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex. Clinicians and others evaluating an MTC should be aware of the potential biases that can affect the interpretation of these analyses. Readers should consider whether the primary studies are sufficiently homogeneous to combine; whether the different interventions are sufficiently similar in their populations, study designs, and outcomes; and whether the direct evidence is sufficiently similar to the indirect evidence to consider combining. This article uses the existing Users'Guides format to address study validity, interpretation of results, and application to a patient scenario.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1246-1253
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume308
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 19 2012

Fingerprint

Reproducibility of Results
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Population
Therapeutics
Network Meta-Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Mills, E. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Thorlund, K., Schünemann, H. J., Puhan, M. A., & Guyatt, G. H. (2012). How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 308(12), 1246-1253. https://doi.org/10.1001/2012.jama.11228

How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. / Mills, Edward J.; Ioannidis, John P A; Thorlund, Kristian; Schünemann, Holger J.; Puhan, Milo A.; Guyatt, Gordon H.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 308, No. 12, 19.09.2012, p. 1246-1253.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mills, EJ, Ioannidis, JPA, Thorlund, K, Schünemann, HJ, Puhan, MA & Guyatt, GH 2012, 'How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 308, no. 12, pp. 1246-1253. https://doi.org/10.1001/2012.jama.11228
Mills EJ, Ioannidis JPA, Thorlund K, Schünemann HJ, Puhan MA, Guyatt GH. How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2012 Sep 19;308(12):1246-1253. https://doi.org/10.1001/2012.jama.11228
Mills, Edward J. ; Ioannidis, John P A ; Thorlund, Kristian ; Schünemann, Holger J. ; Puhan, Milo A. ; Guyatt, Gordon H. / How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. In: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2012 ; Vol. 308, No. 12. pp. 1246-1253.
@article{177dfd2ab285427fbc9673ed2ecbe239,
title = "How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis",
abstract = "Multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions. The methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex. Clinicians and others evaluating an MTC should be aware of the potential biases that can affect the interpretation of these analyses. Readers should consider whether the primary studies are sufficiently homogeneous to combine; whether the different interventions are sufficiently similar in their populations, study designs, and outcomes; and whether the direct evidence is sufficiently similar to the indirect evidence to consider combining. This article uses the existing Users'Guides format to address study validity, interpretation of results, and application to a patient scenario.",
author = "Mills, {Edward J.} and Ioannidis, {John P A} and Kristian Thorlund and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.} and Puhan, {Milo A.} and Guyatt, {Gordon H.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1001/2012.jama.11228",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "308",
pages = "1246--1253",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0098-7484",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis

AU - Mills, Edward J.

AU - Ioannidis, John P A

AU - Thorlund, Kristian

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Puhan, Milo A.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

PY - 2012/9/19

Y1 - 2012/9/19

N2 - Multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions. The methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex. Clinicians and others evaluating an MTC should be aware of the potential biases that can affect the interpretation of these analyses. Readers should consider whether the primary studies are sufficiently homogeneous to combine; whether the different interventions are sufficiently similar in their populations, study designs, and outcomes; and whether the direct evidence is sufficiently similar to the indirect evidence to consider combining. This article uses the existing Users'Guides format to address study validity, interpretation of results, and application to a patient scenario.

AB - Multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions. The methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex. Clinicians and others evaluating an MTC should be aware of the potential biases that can affect the interpretation of these analyses. Readers should consider whether the primary studies are sufficiently homogeneous to combine; whether the different interventions are sufficiently similar in their populations, study designs, and outcomes; and whether the direct evidence is sufficiently similar to the indirect evidence to consider combining. This article uses the existing Users'Guides format to address study validity, interpretation of results, and application to a patient scenario.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866554883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866554883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/2012.jama.11228

DO - 10.1001/2012.jama.11228

M3 - Article

C2 - 23011714

AN - SCOPUS:84866554883

VL - 308

SP - 1246

EP - 1253

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0098-7484

IS - 12

ER -