751 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21669367)
1. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.
Hoaglin DC; Hawkins N; Jansen JP; Scott DA; Itzler R; Cappelleri JC; Boersma C; Thompson D; Larholt KM; Diaz M; Barrett A
Value Health; 2011 Jun; 14(4):429-37. PubMed ID: 21669367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1.
Jansen JP; Fleurence R; Devine B; Itzler R; Barrett A; Hawkins N; Lee K; Boersma C; Annemans L; Cappelleri JC
Value Health; 2011 Jun; 14(4):417-28. PubMed ID: 21669366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.
Bridges JF; Hauber AB; Marshall D; Lloyd A; Prosser LA; Regier DA; Johnson FR; Mauskopf J
Value Health; 2011 Jun; 14(4):403-13. PubMed ID: 21669364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Indirect comparison and network meta-analyses--new tools for the assessment of evidence on the relative efficacy of drugs].
Peura P; Asseburg C; Turunen J; Purmonen T; Martikainen J
Duodecim; 2011; 127(9):900-10. PubMed ID: 21648163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Graphical exploration of network meta-analysis data: the use of multidimensional scaling.
Chung H; Lumley T
Clin Trials; 2008; 5(4):301-7. PubMed ID: 18697844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report.
Ramsey S; Willke R; Briggs A; Brown R; Buxton M; Chawla A; Cook J; Glick H; Liljas B; Petitti D; Reed S
Value Health; 2005; 8(5):521-33. PubMed ID: 16176491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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.
Jansen JP; Trikalinos T; Cappelleri JC; Daw J; Andes S; Eldessouki R; Salanti G
Value Health; 2014 Mar; 17(2):157-73. PubMed ID: 24636374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Statistical approaches for conducting network meta-analysis in drug development.
Jones B; Roger J; Lane PW; Lawton A; Fletcher C; Cappelleri JC; Tate H; Moneuse P;
Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(6):523-31. PubMed ID: 22213533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta-analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons.
König J; Krahn U; Binder H
Stat Med; 2013 Dec; 32(30):5414-29. PubMed ID: 24123165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of meta-analytic results of indirect, direct, and combined comparisons of drugs for chronic insomnia in adults: a case study.
Vandermeer BW; Buscemi N; Liang Y; Witmans M
Med Care; 2007 Oct; 45(10 Supl 2):S166-72. PubMed ID: 17909377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making.
Berger ML; Sox H; Willke RJ; Brixner DL; Eichler HG; Goettsch W; Madigan D; Makady A; Schneeweiss S; Tarricone R; Wang SV; Watkins J; Daniel Mullins C
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Sep; 26(9):1033-1039. PubMed ID: 28913966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions.
Song F; Harvey I; Lilford R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 May; 61(5):455-63. PubMed ID: 18394538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Pitfalls in meta-analyses on adverse events reported from clinical trials.
Huang HY; Andrews E; Jones J; Skovron ML; Tilson H
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2011 Oct; 20(10):1014-20. PubMed ID: 21858897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II.
Cox E; Martin BC; Van Staa T; Garbe E; Siebert U; Johnson ML
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1053-61. PubMed ID: 19744292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Criteria and Process for Initiating and Developing an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report.
Malone DC; Ramsey SD; Patrick DL; Johnson FR; Mullins CD; Roberts MS; Willke RJ; Marshall DA
Value Health; 2020 Apr; 23(4):409-415. PubMed ID: 32327155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.
Song F; Altman DG; Glenny AM; Deeks JJ
BMJ; 2003 Mar; 326(7387):472. PubMed ID: 12609941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Using meta-regression in performing indirect-comparisons: comparing escitalopram with venlafaxine XR.
Eckert L; Falissard B
Curr Med Res Opin; 2006 Nov; 22(11):2313-21. PubMed ID: 17076991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
