Background: Traditionally, meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes reports a single pooled hazard ratio assuming proportional hazards (PH). For health technology assessment evaluations, hazard ratios are frequently extrapolated across a lifetime horizon. However, when treatment effects vary over time, an assumption of PH is not always valid. The…

In Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis, the use of weakly informative prior distributions is of particular benefit in cases where only a few studies are included, a situation often encountered in health technology assessment (HTA). Suggestions for empirical prior distributions are available in the literature but it is unknown whether these are…

Meta-analysis is commonly used to compare two treatments. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful extension for comparing and contrasting multiple treatments simultaneously in a systematic review of multiple clinical trials. Although the practical utility of meta-analysis is apparent, it is not always straightforward to implement, especially for…

The meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) approach is a Bayesian method to incorporate historical controls in new trials that aims to increase the statistical power and reduce the required sample size. Here we investigate how to calculate the sample size of the new trial when historical data is available, and the MAP approach is used in the analysis. In…

Bayesian methods seem a natural choice for combining sources of evidence in meta-analyses. However, in practice, their sensitivity to the choice of prior distribution is much less attractive, particularly for parameters describing heterogeneity. A recent non-Bayesian approach to fixed-effects meta-analysis provides novel ways to think about…

When meta-analyzing heterogeneous bodies of literature, meta-regression can be used to account for potentially relevant between-studies differences. A key challenge is that the number of candidate moderators is often high relative to the number of studies. This introduces risks of overfitting, spurious results, and model non-convergence. To…

Rare events meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often underpowered because the outcomes are infrequent. Real-world evidence (RWE) from non-randomized studies may provide valuable complementary evidence about the effects of rare events, and there is growing interest in including such evidence in the decision-making process.…

There exists a variety of interval estimators for the overall treatment effect in a random-effects meta-analysis. A recent literature review summarizing existing methods suggested that in most situations, the Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method was preferable. However, a quantitative comparison of those methods in a common simulation study…

The mixed treatment comparison (MTC) method has been proposed to combine results across trials comparing several treatments. MTC allows coherent judgments on which of the treatments is the most effective. It produces estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with every other treatment by pooling direct and indirect evidence. In…

Network meta-analysis is a popular method to synthesize the information obtained in a systematic review of studies (e.g., randomized clinical trials) involving subsets of multiple treatments of interest. The dominant method of analysis employs within-study information on treatment contrasts and integrates this over a network of studies. One…

The performance of statistical methods is often evaluated by means of simulation studies. In case of network meta-analysis of binary data, however, simulations are not currently available for many practically relevant settings. We perform a simulation study for sparse networks of trials under between-trial heterogeneity and including multi-arm…

Meta-analyses of clinical trials targeting rare events face particular challenges when the data lack adequate numbers of events for all treatment arms. Especially when the number of studies is low, standard random-effects meta-analysis methods can lead to serious distortions because of such data sparsity. To overcome this, we suggest the use of…

Researchers may have multiple motivations for combining disparate pieces of evidence in a meta-analysis, such as generalizing experimental results or increasing the power to detect an effect that a single study is not able to detect. However, while in meta-analysis, the main question may be simple, the structure of evidence available to answer it…