Journal
VALUE IN HEALTH
Volume 15, Issue 8, Pages 1137-1140Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.001
Keywords
indirect comparisons; risk; risk difference; risk ratio; odds ratio
Funding
- AHRQ [1R18HS018032]
- NIH/NCRR [3UL1RR029887, 3UL1RR029887-03S1]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objective: To describe rank reversal as a source of inconsistent interpretation intrinsic to indirect comparison (Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epi 1997;50:683-91) of treatments and to propose best practice. Methods: We prove our main points with intuition, examples, graphs, and mathematical proofs. We also provide software and discuss implications for research and policy. Results: When comparing treatments by indirect means and sorting them by effect size, three common measures of comparison (risk ratio, risk difference, and odds ratio) may lead to vastly different rankings. Conclusions: The choice of risk measure matters when making indirect comparisons of treatments. The choice should depend primarily on the study design and the conceptual framework for that study.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available