We are leveraging evidence and influencing the national dialogue about value.

1-8 of 14 Publications

Annals of Medicine 2015

The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. 


The New England Journal of Medicine 2015

Measuring the Value of Prescription Drugs

Escalating drug prices have alarmed physicians and the American public and led to calls for government price controls. Less visibly, they have also spawned a flurry of private-sector initiatives designed to help physicians, payers, and patients understand the value of new therapies and thus make better choices about their use. Programs recently introduced or advanced by nonprofit organizations, including leading medical professional societies, represent an important innovation in the United States, but they have also revealed numerous analytic and implementation challenges.


Health Services Research 2014

Reforming Medicare’s Dialysis Payment Policies: Implications for Patients with Secondary Hyperparathyroidism

Expanding services covered by a “bundled payment” can also expand variation in the costs of treating patients under the bundle. In this article, Charu Gupta et al.explore this topic further using the Medicare dialysis program as an example.  


Value in Health 2014

Indirect Treatment Comparison/Network Meta-Analysis Study Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility to Inform Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report

Despite the great realized or potential value of network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial evidence to inform health care decision making, many decision makers might not be familiar with these techniques. The Task Force developed a consensus-based 26-item questionnaire to help decision makers assess the relevance and the credibility of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to help inform health care decision making. 


BMC Medicine 2013

Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers

In the last decade, network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been introduced as an extension of pairwise meta-analysis. The advantage of network meta-analysis over standard pairwise meta-analysis is that it facilitates indirect comparisons of multiple interventions that have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. 


BMC Medical Research Methodology 2012

Meta-regression models to address heterogeneity and inconsistency in network meta-analysis of survival outcomes

Recently, network meta-analysis of survival data with a multidimensional treatment effect was introduced. With these models the hazard ratio is not assumed to be constant over time, thereby reducing the possibility of violating transitivity in indirect comparisons. However, bias is still present if there are systematic differences in treatment effect modifiers across comparisons. 


Research Synthesis Methods 2012

Accounting for correlation in network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials

Multi-arm trials are particularly valuable forms of evidence for network meta-analysis (NMA). Trial results are available either as arm-level summaries, where effect measures are reported for each arm or as contrast-level summaries, where the differences in effect between arms compare with the control arm chosen for the trial.


BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011

Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials

Pairwise meta-analysis, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for aggregate level survival data are often based on the reported hazard ratio, which relies on the proportional hazards assumption. This assumption is implausible when hazard functions intersect, and can have a huge impact on decisions based on comparisons of expected survival, such as cost-effectiveness analysis.