Increasing transparency in indirect treatment comparisons: is selecting effect modifiers the missing part of the puzzle? A review of methodological approaches and critical considerations
Failure to adjust for effect modifiers (EMs) in indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can produce biased and uncertain effect estimates. This is particularly important for health technology assessments (HTAs), where the availability of new treatments is based on comparative effectiveness results....
Main Authors: | Andreas Freitag, Laura Gurskyte, Grammati Sarri |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Becaris Publishing Limited
2023-08-01
|
Series: | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
Subjects: |
Similar Items
-
Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of ribociclib and palbociclib in HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer
by: Tremblay G, et al.
Published: (2018-05-01) -
Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of guselkumab versus risankizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: Change in baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index from week 4 to 40
by: Richard G. Langley, MD, et al.
Published: (2024-06-01) -
Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies for third-line or later treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: lisocabtagene maraleucel versus tisagenlecleucel
by: Guillaume Cartron, et al.
Published: (2022-03-01) -
Clinical Efficacy of Sarilumab Versus Upadacitinib Over 12 weeks: An Indirect Treatment Comparison
by: Thomas Huizinga, et al.
Published: (2023-02-01) -
Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison
by: Antonio Remiro-Azócar
Published: (2022-08-01)