By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

Overall similarity and consistency assessment scores are not sufficiently accurate for predicting discrepancy between direct and indirect comparison estimates

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

Published copy (DOI)


  • Tengbin Xiong
  • Sheetal Parekh-Bhurke
  • Yoon K. Loke
  • Asmaa Abdelhamid
  • Alex J. Sutton
  • Alison J. Eastwood
  • Richard Holland
  • Yen-Fu Chen
  • Tanya Walsh
  • Anne-Marie Glenny
  • Fujian Song


Publication details

JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
DatePublished - Feb 2013
Issue number2
Number of pages8
Pages (from-to)184-191
Original languageEnglish


Objectives: Indirect comparison methods have been increasingly used to assess the effectiveness of different interventions comparatively. This study evaluated a Trial Similarity and Evidence Consistency Assessment (TSECA) framework for assessing key assumptions underlying the validity of indirect comparisons.

Study Design and Setting: We applied the TSECA framework to 94 Cochrane Systematic Reviews that provided data to compare two interventions by both direct and indirect comparisons. Using the TSECA framework, two reviewers independently assessed and scored trial similarity and evidence consistency. A detailed case study provided further insight into the usefulness and limitations of the framework proposed.

Results: Trial similarity and evidence consistency scores obtained using the assessment framework were not associated with statistically significant inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates. The case study illustrated that the assessment framework could be used to identify potentially important differences in participants, interventions, and outcome measures between different sets of trials in the indirect comparison.

Conclusion: Although the overall trial similarity and evidence consistency scores are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate for predicting inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates, the assessment framework proposed in this study can be a useful tool for identifying between-trial differences that may threaten the validity of indirect treatment comparisons. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    Research areas

  • Indirect treatment comparison, Mixed treatment comparison, Multiple treatment meta-analysis, BIAS, Network meta-analysis, CONTROLLED TRIALS, Evidence consistency, Trial similarity, MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISONS, VALIDITY, NETWORK METAANALYSIS, INCONSISTENCY, EFFICACY, COMPETING INTERVENTIONS

Discover related content

Find related publications, people, projects, datasets and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations