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…

Often clinicians are interested in determining whether a subject's measurement falls within a normal range, defined as a range of values of a continuous outcome which contains some proportion (eg, 95%) of measurements from a healthy population. Several studies in the biomedical field have estimated reference ranges based on a meta-analysis of…

Reference intervals, or reference ranges, aid medical decision-making by containing a pre-specified proportion (e.g., 95%) of the measurements in a representative healthy population. We recently proposed three approaches for estimating a reference interval from a meta-analysis based on a random effects model: a frequentist approach, a Bayesian…

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…

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…

Standard models for network meta-analysis simultaneously estimate multiple relative treatment effects. In practice, after estimation, these multiple estimates usually pass through a formal or informal selection procedure, eg, when researchers draw conclusions about the effects of the best performing treatment in the network. In this paper, we…

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…

Synthesizing findings about the indirect (mediated) effect plays an important role in determining the mechanism through which variables affect one another. This simulation study compared six methods for synthesizing indirect effects: correlation-based MASEM, parameter-based MASEM, marginal likelihood synthesis, an adjustment to marginal likelihood…

Background: Model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) is increasingly used to inform drug-development decisions by synthesising results from multiple studies to estimate treatment, dose-response, and time-course characteristics. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is used in Health Technology Appraisals for simultaneously comparing effects of multiple treatments,…

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…

If IPD is available for some or all trials in a network meta-analysis (NMA), then incorporating this IPD into an NMA is routinely considered to be preferable. However, the situation often arises where a researcher has IPD for trials concerning a particular treatment (eg, from a sponsor) but none for other trials. Therefore, one can reweight the…

Meta-analysis can necessitate the combination of parallel and cross-over trial designs. Because of the differences in the trial designs and potential biases notably associated with the crossover trials, one often combines trials of the same designs only, which decreases the power of the meta-analysis. To combine results of clinical trials from…

Meta-analyses in orphan diseases and small populations generally face particular problems, including small numbers of studies, small study sizes and heterogeneity of results. However, the heterogeneity is difficult to estimate if only very few studies are included. Motivated by a systematic review in immunosuppression following liver…

In network meta-analysis, the use of fixed baseline treatment effects (a priori independent) in a contrast-based approach is regularly preferred to the use of random baseline treatment effects (a priori dependent). That is because, often, there is not a need to model baseline treatment effects, which carry the risk of model misspecification.…

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…