Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence : is direct evidence always more reliable?

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Madan, Jason, Stevenson, M. D., Cooper, K. L., Ades, A. E., Whyte, S. and Akehurst, R. (2011) Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence : is direct evidence always more reliable? Value in Health, 14 (6). 953- 960. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.042

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.042

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Objectives

To present a case study involving the reduction in incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy with granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (G-CSFs), illustrating difficulties that may arise when following the common preference for direct evidence over indirect evidence.

Methods

Evidence of the efficacy of treatments was identified from two previous systematic reviews. We used Bayesian evidence synthesis to estimate relative treatment effects based on direct evidence, indirect evidence, and both pooled together. We checked for inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence and explored the role of one specific trial using cross-validation. A subsequent review identified further studies not available at the time of the original analysis. We repeated the analyses on the enlarged evidence base.

Results

We found substantial inconsistency in the original evidence base. The median odds ratio of FN for primary pegfilgrastim versus no primary G-CSF was 0.06 (95% credible interval: 0.02–0.19) based on direct evidence, but 0.27 (95% credible interval: 0.13–0.53) based on indirect evidence (P value for consistency hypothesis 0.027). The additional trials were consistent with the earlier indirect, rather than the direct, evidence, and there was no inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates in the updated evidence. The earlier inconsistency was due to one trial comparing primary pegfilgrastim with no primary G-CSF. Predictive cross-validation showed that this study was inconsistent with the evidence as a whole and with other trials making this comparison.

Conclusions

Both the Cochrane Handbook and the NICE Methods Guide express a preference for direct evidence. A more robust strategy, which is in line with the accepted principles of evidence synthesis, would be to combine all relevant and appropriate information, whether direct or indirect.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Clinical Trials Unit
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title: Value in Health
Publisher: Elsevier
ISSN: 1098-3015
Official Date: 29 July 2011
Dates:
DateEvent
29 July 2011Published
Volume: 14
Number: 6
Page Range: 953- 960
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.042
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder: Amgen

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us