Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Studies in Oncology: A Scoping Review Focused on Reporting Quality

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Cecília Menezes Farinasso MSc , Vinícius Lins Ferreira PhD , Flávia Cordeiro Medeiros PhD , Aline Pereira da Rocha PhD , Patrícia do Carmo Silva Parreira PhD , Layssa Andrade Oliveira MSc , Lays Pires Marra PhD , Rosa Camila Lucchetta PhD , Haliton Alves de Oliveira Jr. PhD
{"title":"Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Studies in Oncology: A Scoping Review Focused on Reporting Quality","authors":"Cecília Menezes Farinasso MSc ,&nbsp;Vinícius Lins Ferreira PhD ,&nbsp;Flávia Cordeiro Medeiros PhD ,&nbsp;Aline Pereira da Rocha PhD ,&nbsp;Patrícia do Carmo Silva Parreira PhD ,&nbsp;Layssa Andrade Oliveira MSc ,&nbsp;Lays Pires Marra PhD ,&nbsp;Rosa Camila Lucchetta PhD ,&nbsp;Haliton Alves de Oliveira Jr. PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2025.101088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can be used in case of cross-trial heterogeneity or availability of only single-arm trials. Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides MAIC-development orientation, many still do not adhere to it. Our goal was to map MAIC oncology studies and whether NICE recommendations were observed.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We included MAIC studies comparing treatments in oncology from 2010. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to October 1, 2024. We analyzed MAIC characteristics such as previous systematic reviews, whether the analysis was anchored or unanchored, selection of variables, and individual patient data (IPD) reporting. We adopted NICE recommendations for the assessment of MAIC studies.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 117 MAIC studies, which often explored multiple myeloma (n = 19%) and non–small cell lung cancer (17%) more frequently. Most MAICs were unanchored (72%), with an average of 1.9 comparisons per study. MAIC studies generally reported using pseudo-IPD (69%) but did not report the source of IPD (78%). In general, MAICs did not conduct systematic reviews to select trials for inclusion (66%). The average sample size reduction, in comparison with the original trials, was 44.9%. Only 3 MAICs fulfilled all NICE recommendations. The least reported aspects were the adjustment for all effect modifiers and prognostic variables (for unanchored MAICs), evidence of effect modifier status, and distribution of weights.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Most MAIC models did not follow NICE recommendations. Our review highlights the importance of rigorous methodological standards and thorough reporting of MAIC studies to enhance their credibility.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":"47 ","pages":"Article 101088"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109925000135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can be used in case of cross-trial heterogeneity or availability of only single-arm trials. Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides MAIC-development orientation, many still do not adhere to it. Our goal was to map MAIC oncology studies and whether NICE recommendations were observed.

Methods

We included MAIC studies comparing treatments in oncology from 2010. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to October 1, 2024. We analyzed MAIC characteristics such as previous systematic reviews, whether the analysis was anchored or unanchored, selection of variables, and individual patient data (IPD) reporting. We adopted NICE recommendations for the assessment of MAIC studies.

Results

We included 117 MAIC studies, which often explored multiple myeloma (n = 19%) and non–small cell lung cancer (17%) more frequently. Most MAICs were unanchored (72%), with an average of 1.9 comparisons per study. MAIC studies generally reported using pseudo-IPD (69%) but did not report the source of IPD (78%). In general, MAICs did not conduct systematic reviews to select trials for inclusion (66%). The average sample size reduction, in comparison with the original trials, was 44.9%. Only 3 MAICs fulfilled all NICE recommendations. The least reported aspects were the adjustment for all effect modifiers and prognostic variables (for unanchored MAICs), evidence of effect modifier status, and distribution of weights.

Conclusions

Most MAIC models did not follow NICE recommendations. Our review highlights the importance of rigorous methodological standards and thorough reporting of MAIC studies to enhance their credibility.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信