Tremblay, G., Westley, T., Forsythe, A., Pelletier, C. and Briggs, A. (2019) A criterion-based approach to systematic and transparent comparative effectiveness: a case study in psoriatic arthritis. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 8(15), pp. 1265-1298. (doi: 10.2217/cer-2019-0064) (PMID:31774340)
Text
194983.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. 986kB |
Abstract
Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons are used when no direct comparison is available. Comparison networks should satisfy the transitivity assumption, that is, equal likelihood of treatment assignment for a given patient based on comparability of studies. Materials and methods: Seven criteria were evaluated across 18 randomized controlled trials in psoriatic arthritis: inclusion/exclusion criteria, clinical trial design and follow-up, patient-level baseline characteristics, disease severity, prior therapies, concomitant and extended-trial treatment and placebo response differences. Results: Across studies, placebo was a common comparator, and key efficacy end points were reported. Collectively, several potential sources of insufficient transitivity were identified, most often related to trial design and population differences. Conclusion: Potential challenges in satisfying transitivity occur frequently and should be evaluated thoroughly.
Item Type: | Articles |
---|---|
Status: | Published |
Refereed: | Yes |
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: | Briggs, Professor Andrew |
Authors: | Tremblay, G., Westley, T., Forsythe, A., Pelletier, C., and Briggs, A. |
College/School: | College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Health & Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment |
Journal Name: | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
Publisher: | Future Medicine |
ISSN: | 2042-6305 |
ISSN (Online): | 2042-6313 |
Published Online: | 05 September 2019 |
Copyright Holders: | Copyright © 2019 Gabriel Tremblay |
First Published: | First published in Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 8(15): 1265-1298 |
Publisher Policy: | Reproduced under a Creative Commons license |
University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record