Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) enables indirect comparisons of interventions across separate studies when individual patient-level data (IPD) are available for only one study. Due to its similarity with propensity score weighting, it has been speculated that MAIC can be combined with outcome regression models in the spirit of…

Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is based on propensity score weighting, which is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate…

Meta-analyses often include only a small number of studies ([less than or equal to]5). Estimating between-study heterogeneity is difficult in this situation. An inaccurate estimation of heterogeneity can result in biased effect estimates and too narrow confidence intervals. The beta-binominal model has shown good statistical properties for…

Meta-analyses are often used to synthesize the findings of studies examining the correlational relationship between two continuous variables. When only dichotomous measurements are available for one of the two variables, the biserial correlation coefficient can be used to estimate the product-moment correlation between the two underlying…

Background: Many reviews aim to compare numerous treatments and report results stratified by subgroups (eg, by disease severity). In such cases, a network meta-analysis model including treatment by covariate interactions can estimate the relative effects of all treatment pairings for each subgroup of patients. Two key assumptions underlie such…

The use of individual patient data (IPD) in network meta-analysis (NMA) is becoming increasingly popular. However, as most studies do not report IPD, most NMAs are performed using aggregate data for at least some, if not all, of the studies. We investigate the benefits of including varying proportions of IPD studies in an NMA. Several models have…

Heterogeneity in meta-analysis is most commonly estimated using a moment-based approach described by DerSimonian and Laird. However, this method has been shown to produce biased estimates. Alternative methods to estimate heterogeneity include the restricted maximum likelihood approach and those proposed by Paule and Mandel, Sidik and Jonkman, and…

Bayesian statistical approaches to mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are becoming more popular because of their flexibility and interpretability. Many randomized clinical trials report multiple outcomes with possible inherent correlations. Moreover, MTC data are typically sparse (although richer than standard meta-analysis, comparing only two…

Motivated by our meta-analytic dataset involving survival rates after treatment for critical leg ischemia, we develop and apply a new multivariate model for the meta-analysis of study level survival data at multiple times. Our data set involves 50 studies that provide mortality rates at up to seven time points, which we model simultaneously, and…

When performing a meta-analysis unexplained variation above that predicted by within study variation is usually modeled by a random effect. However, in some cases, this is not sufficient to explain all the variation because of outlier or unusual studies. A previously described method is to define an outlier as a study requiring a higher random…