期刊
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 308, 期 12, 页码 1246-1253出版社
AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/2012.jama.11228
关键词
-
资金
- Merck Co Inc
- Pfizer Ltd
- Novartis
- Takeda
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Drug Safety & Effectiveness Network (DSEN) NETMAN
- CIHR through a Canada Research Chair
- CIHR DSEN NETMAN project
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. JAMA. 2012;308(12):1246-1253 www.jama.com
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据