Abstract
Clinical decision-making requires synthesis of an often complex evidence base. Novel tools have been developed building upon the historical approach of reviewing the literature focusing on a specific topic. Stemming from qualitative reviews, systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials, typically encompassing statistical pooling with pairwise meta-analysis, have been devised and are now considered one of the uppermost ladders in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. In the last decade, the exponential growth in randomized trials and the introduction of original computational methods have created the novel opportunity to compare indirectly competing treatments, as well as combining effect estimates stemming from head-to-head trials with those obtained by indirect comparisons. These methods include adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and mixed treatment comparison. While still the focus of intense research and debate, they represent a powerful tool for evidence synthesis and comparative effectiveness in cardiovascular research, and thus are likely to become increasingly popular and impactful in shaping research agenda and clinical practice. This is clearly highlighted by a number of recent landmark network meta-analyses on smoking cessation therapies, coronary stents, and management of patent foramen ovale in patients with history of cryptogenic stroke.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 309-314 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | International Journal of Cardiology |
| Volume | 182 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 1 2015 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis
- Evidence-based medicine
- Mixed treatment comparison
- Network meta-analysis
- Systematic review
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
Network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis : What is it and why is it posed to dominate cardiovascular decision making? / Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe; Abbate, Antonio; Benedetto, Umberto; Palmerini, Tullio; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Frati, Giacomo.
In: International Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 182, 01.03.2015, p. 309-314.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis
T2 - What is it and why is it posed to dominate cardiovascular decision making?
AU - Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe
AU - Abbate, Antonio
AU - Benedetto, Umberto
AU - Palmerini, Tullio
AU - D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio
AU - Frati, Giacomo
PY - 2015/3/1
Y1 - 2015/3/1
N2 - Clinical decision-making requires synthesis of an often complex evidence base. Novel tools have been developed building upon the historical approach of reviewing the literature focusing on a specific topic. Stemming from qualitative reviews, systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials, typically encompassing statistical pooling with pairwise meta-analysis, have been devised and are now considered one of the uppermost ladders in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. In the last decade, the exponential growth in randomized trials and the introduction of original computational methods have created the novel opportunity to compare indirectly competing treatments, as well as combining effect estimates stemming from head-to-head trials with those obtained by indirect comparisons. These methods include adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and mixed treatment comparison. While still the focus of intense research and debate, they represent a powerful tool for evidence synthesis and comparative effectiveness in cardiovascular research, and thus are likely to become increasingly popular and impactful in shaping research agenda and clinical practice. This is clearly highlighted by a number of recent landmark network meta-analyses on smoking cessation therapies, coronary stents, and management of patent foramen ovale in patients with history of cryptogenic stroke.
AB - Clinical decision-making requires synthesis of an often complex evidence base. Novel tools have been developed building upon the historical approach of reviewing the literature focusing on a specific topic. Stemming from qualitative reviews, systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials, typically encompassing statistical pooling with pairwise meta-analysis, have been devised and are now considered one of the uppermost ladders in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. In the last decade, the exponential growth in randomized trials and the introduction of original computational methods have created the novel opportunity to compare indirectly competing treatments, as well as combining effect estimates stemming from head-to-head trials with those obtained by indirect comparisons. These methods include adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and mixed treatment comparison. While still the focus of intense research and debate, they represent a powerful tool for evidence synthesis and comparative effectiveness in cardiovascular research, and thus are likely to become increasingly popular and impactful in shaping research agenda and clinical practice. This is clearly highlighted by a number of recent landmark network meta-analyses on smoking cessation therapies, coronary stents, and management of patent foramen ovale in patients with history of cryptogenic stroke.
KW - Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis
KW - Evidence-based medicine
KW - Mixed treatment comparison
KW - Network meta-analysis
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947201952&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947201952&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.01.023
DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.01.023
M3 - Article
C2 - 25585376
AN - SCOPUS:84947201952
VL - 182
SP - 309
EP - 314
JO - International Journal of Cardiology
JF - International Journal of Cardiology
SN - 0167-5273
ER -