Research Student, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Oct;18(4):224-32. doi: 10.1177/1355819613498379. Epub 2013 Aug 14.
To establish current guidance and practice in UK on presentation of indirect comparison and mixed treatment comparison analyses; to provide recommendations to improve indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison reporting and to identify research priorities for improved presentation.
Existing institutional guidance for conducting indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison alongside current practice in health technology assessment was reviewed. Reports published in UK by the Health Technology Assessment programme since 1997, which utilized indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison methods, were reviewed with respect to the presentation of study data, statistical models and results. Recommendations for presentation were developed.
Guidance exists that provide the details necessary to conduct a successful indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison analysis but recommendations on presentation are limited. Of 205 health technology assessment reports that contained evidence synthesis for effectiveness, 19 used indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison methods. These reports utilized numerous presentational formats from which the following key components were identified: network table/diagram for presenting data; model description to allow reproducibility; and tables, forest plots, matrix tables and summary forest plots for presenting a range of results. Recommendations were developed to ensure that reporting is explicit, transparent and reproducible. Approaches most understandable by non-technical decision makers, and areas where future research is required, are outlined.
There is no standard presentational style used in UK for reporting indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison, and the use of graphical tools is limited. Standardization of reporting and innovation in graphical representation of indirect comparison/mixed treatment comparison results is required.
确定英国当前在间接比较和混合治疗比较分析呈现方面的指导意见和实践;为改进间接比较/混合治疗比较报告提供建议,并确定改进呈现方式的研究重点。
审查了进行间接比较/混合治疗比较的现有机构指南以及健康技术评估中的当前实践。对自 1997 年以来在英国由健康技术评估计划发布的、利用间接比较/混合治疗比较方法的报告,就研究数据、统计模型和结果的呈现进行了审查。制定了呈现建议。
存在提供成功进行间接比较/混合治疗比较分析所需的详细信息的指导意见,但呈现方面的建议有限。在 205 项包含有效性综合证据的健康技术评估报告中,有 19 项使用了间接比较/混合治疗比较方法。这些报告采用了多种呈现格式,从中确定了以下关键组成部分:网络表格/图表用于呈现数据;模型描述以允许重现;以及表格、森林图、矩阵表和汇总森林图用于呈现一系列结果。制定了建议,以确保报告具有明确性、透明度和可重现性。概述了最易被非技术决策者理解的方法和需要进一步研究的领域。
英国在报告间接比较/混合治疗比较方面没有标准的呈现风格,图形工具的使用也有限。需要对报告进行标准化,并创新间接比较/混合治疗比较结果的图形表示。