Estimating the Power of Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study
Edward J Mills,
Isabella Ghement,
Christopher O'Regan and
Kristian Thorlund
PLOS ONE, 2011, vol. 6, issue 1, 1-8
Abstract:
Background: Indirect comparisons are becoming increasingly popular for evaluating medical treatments that have not been compared head-to-head in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). While indirect methods have grown in popularity and acceptance, little is known about the fragility of confidence interval estimations and hypothesis testing relying on this method. Methods: We present the findings of a simulation study that examined the fragility of indirect confidence interval estimation and hypothesis testing relying on the adjusted indirect method. Findings: Our results suggest that, for the settings considered in this study, indirect confidence interval estimation suffers from under-coverage while indirect hypothesis testing suffers from low power in the presence of moderate to large between-study heterogeneity. In addition, the risk of overestimation is large when the indirect comparison of interest relies on just one trial for one of the two direct comparisons. Interpretation: Indirect comparisons typically suffer from low power. The risk of imprecision is increased when comparisons are unbalanced.
Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)
Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016237 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 16237&type=printable (application/pdf)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0016237
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016237
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().