Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 cited by

Anchors Away: Navigating Unanchored Indirect Comparisons with Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression (ML-UMR)

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ML-UMR extends multilevel network meta-regression to unanchored settings by jointly modeling individual- and aggregate-level data within a unified likelihood.

desk verdict ML-UMR gives a unified Bayesian multilevel setup for unanchored comparisons that spells out the assumptions clearly, but the simulations only confirm performance when the outcome model is exactly right. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.20341 v1 pith:ECKSPP26 submitted 2026-06-18 stat.ME stat.AP

Conor Chandler , Jack Ishak This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP
keywords unanchoredindirectcomparisonmultilevelmeta-regressionnetworkmeta-analysisindividualpatientdataaggregateBayesianmethodstransportabilityhealthtechnologyassessment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes multilevel unanchored meta-regression (ML-UMR) to address limitations in existing methods for unanchored indirect treatment comparisons. It extends multilevel network meta-regression to fully disconnected evidence by using a Bayesian framework that jointly models individual patient data and aggregate data. This allows estimation of treatment effects in the comparator population as well as transport to target populations. The method makes assumptions explicit to support sensitivity analyses, and simulations show low bias when assumptions are met.

What carries the argument

The unified likelihood in the multilevel unanchored meta-regression (ML-UMR) model that combines individual- and aggregate-level data.

What would settle it

A simulation with known true effects where the shared prognostic factor assumption is violated under strong effect modification, producing biased estimates and poor coverage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ML-UMR extends multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR) to unanchored settings by jointly modeling individual- and aggregate-level data within a unified likelihood, enabling estimation of treatment-specific outcomes and both marginal and conditional effects across multiple treatments, studies, and target populations.

Load-bearing premise

The outcome model must be correctly specified and conditional exchangeability must hold across treatments and studies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Produces low bias and nominal coverage for effects estimated in the comparator population.
  • Transport to alternative populations requires the shared prognostic factor assumption; violations cause bias under strong effect modification.
  • Incorporating subgroup information can restore near-unbiased estimation and nominal coverage.
  • Supports sensitivity analyses by making identification and transportability assumptions explicit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same unified likelihood structure could be tested on real disconnected networks in health technology assessment submissions.
  • Similar joint modeling of individual and aggregate data might improve effect estimation in other disconnected evidence settings such as observational cohorts.
  • The distinction between identification and transport assumptions could guide sensitivity checks in multi-population meta-analyses beyond the current simulations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes multilevel unanchored meta-regression (ML-UMR), a Bayesian framework extending multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR) to unanchored indirect comparisons. It jointly models individual patient data and aggregate data from disconnected networks within a unified likelihood to estimate treatment-specific outcomes and both marginal and conditional effects across multiple treatments, studies, and target populations. The approach explicitly distinguishes identification assumptions (conditional exchangeability, correct outcome model specification, shared prognostic factor assumption) from transportability assumptions and reports simulation results showing low bias and nominal coverage under correct specification, with bias arising from SPFA violations under strong effect modification.

Significance. If the central claims hold, ML-UMR supplies a unified Bayesian platform for unanchored comparisons that renders strong unverifiable assumptions explicit and supports sensitivity analyses, addressing the pairwise and population-specific limitations of MAIC and STC. The ability to handle multiple treatments, synthesize IPD/AD, and produce both marginal and conditional effects while separating identification from transport is a clear methodological contribution for HTA settings lacking randomized evidence. The simulations provide concrete evidence of performance when assumptions are met.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract (simulation studies paragraph)] Abstract (simulation studies paragraph): The reported simulations generate data under the fitted outcome model family and demonstrate low bias/nominal coverage only in that case. No misspecification scenarios (e.g., omitted nonlinear prognostic effects or unmodeled interactions) are examined, even though the abstract states that valid inference requires correct specification of the outcome model. This leaves robustness to a load-bearing assumption untested.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review of our manuscript on ML-UMR. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (simulation studies paragraph)] Abstract (simulation studies paragraph): The reported simulations generate data under the fitted outcome model family and demonstrate low bias/nominal coverage only in that case. No misspecification scenarios (e.g., omitted nonlinear prognostic effects or unmodeled interactions) are examined, even though the abstract states that valid inference requires correct specification of the outcome model. This leaves robustness to a load-bearing assumption untested.

    Authors: We agree that the simulations generate data under the fitted outcome model family and evaluate performance only under correct specification, with no explicit misspecification scenarios (such as omitted nonlinear terms or unmodeled interactions) included. This design aligns with the abstract's statement that valid inference requires correct outcome model specification. The simulations instead prioritize assessment of the shared prognostic factor assumption (SPFA) under varying degrees of effect modification, which is a distinctive and load-bearing assumption for unanchored comparisons. We will revise the abstract's simulation paragraph to state more explicitly that results assume correct model specification, and we will add a short discussion paragraph noting that outcome model misspecification would be expected to produce bias, as is standard for any regression-based estimator. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: method proposal with independent simulation evaluation under stated assumptions.

full rationale

The paper defines ML-UMR as a new Bayesian framework extending ML-NMR to unanchored settings through a unified likelihood for IPD and AD. No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction or treatment effect estimate to a fitted parameter by construction, nor renames a known result, nor imports uniqueness via self-citation. Simulations report bias and coverage only when data are generated from the fitted model family, which is standard verification rather than a self-referential loop. Assumptions (conditional exchangeability, correct outcome model, SPFA) are explicitly listed as required and unverifiable, with no derivation claiming to relax or derive them internally. The framework is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; ledger populated from stated assumptions in the abstract.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Conditional exchangeability
    Required to identify treatment effects from disconnected evidence.
  • domain assumption Shared prognostic factor assumption (SPFA)
    Cross-treatment assumption needed for transportability to target populations.
  • domain assumption Correct specification of the outcome model
    Necessary for valid inference in the unified likelihood.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anchors Away: Navigating Unanchored Indirect Comparisons with Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression (ML-UMR)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECKSPP26

@misc{pith2026260620341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anchors Away: Navigating Unanchored Indirect Comparisons with Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression (ML-UMR)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECKSPP26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.20341}
}
read the original abstract

Unanchored indirect treatment comparisons using single-arm studies or disconnected evidence are increasingly used in health technology assessment (HTA) when randomized evidence is unavailable. Existing methods, including matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC), are generally limited to pairwise settings and typically estimate marginal effects in the comparator study population, which may differ from the decision-relevant population. We propose multilevel unanchored meta-regression (ML-UMR), a Bayesian regression framework for synthesizing individual patient data and aggregate data from fully disconnected evidence. ML-UMR extends multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR) to unanchored settings by jointly modeling individual- and aggregate-level data within a unified likelihood, enabling estimation of treatment-specific outcomes and both marginal and conditional effects across multiple treatments, studies, and target populations. ML-UMR distinguishes assumptions required to identify treatment effects from those required to transport results to target populations. As with all unanchored comparisons, valid inference relies on strong and often unverifiable assumptions, including conditional exchangeability, correct specification of the outcome model, and cross-treatment assumptions (e.g., shared prognostic factor assumption (SPFA)). ML-UMR does not lessen these requirements but makes them explicit within a unified framework and facilitates sensitivity analyses. In simulation studies, ML-UMR produced low bias and nominal coverage for comparator-population effects. Transportability to alternative populations depended critically on identifying assumptions: violations of SPFA led to bias under strong effect modification, whereas incorporating subgroup information restored near-unbiased estimation and nominal coverage.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multilevel network meta-regression for multistate models: Population-adjusted joint synthesis of progression and survival data from individual and aggregate evidence

    stat.ME 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ML-NMR-MS jointly synthesizes PFS/OS via an illness-death model while integrating individual-level regressions over aggregate covariate distributions to yield population-adjusted conditional and marginal effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    identification

    Pairwise Formulation of ML-UMR ML-UMR is a Bayesian modeling approach for PAICs of disconnected evidence (e.g., single-arm studies). It uses the multilevel outcome-regression and marginalization framework of ML-NMR but applies this framework to unanchored comparisons, where the network anchoring structure is absent. Therefore, ML-UMR can be viewed as an a...

  2. [2]

    Extensions of ML-UMR 3.1. Beyond Pairwise Comparisons The pairwise formulation above captures the core structure of ML-UMR: a shared regression model combininganindividual-levellikelihoodwithanaggregate-levellikelihoodobtainedthroughmarginal- ization over covariate distributions. This structure extends directly to settings involving three or more treatmen...

  3. [3]

    The study compared ML-UMR under SPFAandwithSPFArelaxed(viasubgroupdata)withSTCimplementedviag-computationandMAIC

    Simulation Study WeconductedaMonteCarlosimulationstudytoevaluatetheperformanceofML-UMRforunanchored indirect comparisons using disconnected single-arm evidence. The study compared ML-UMR under SPFAandwithSPFArelaxed(viasubgroupdata)withSTCimplementedviag-computationandMAIC. ForMAICandSTC,effectsestimatedinthecomparatorpopulationaredirectlytransportedtothe...

  4. [4]

    Discussion ML-UMRextendstheoutcome-regressionfoundationofunanchoredSTCtoaunifiedBayesianframe- work to synthesize fully disjointed evidence, consisting effectively of a set of single-arm studies. The individual-levelmodelinML-UMRcorrespondstotheregressiontypicallyfittedinSTC;however,ML- UMRembedsthismodelwithinajointlikelihoodthatsimultaneouslyincorporate...

  5. [5]

    Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons

    Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002 Aug 30;21(16):2313-24. 2.DiasS,WeltonNJ,SuttonAJ,AdesAE.NICEDSUTechnicalSupportDocument2:Ageneralised linear modelling framework for pair-wise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 2011

    2002

  6. [6]

    Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

    Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):607-17

    2013

  7. [7]

    Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials

    Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Medical Decision Making. 2013;33(5):641-56

    2013

  8. [8]

    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, et al. Conducting indirect- treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):429-37. 6.AdesA,WeltonNJ,DiasS,PhillippoDM,CaldwellDM.Twentyyearsofnetworkmet...

    2011

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Multilevel network meta-regression for population- adjusted treatment comparisons

    Phillippo DM, Dias S, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Multilevel network meta-regression for population- adjusted treatment comparisons. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A. 2020;183(3):1189- 210

    2020

  2. [10]

    Phillippo DM, Dias S, Ades A, Welton NJ. Multilevel network meta-regression for general likelihoods:synthesisofindividualandaggregatedatawithapplicationstosurvivalanalysis.Journalof the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society. 2025:qnaf169

    2025

  3. [11]

    Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies

    Hogervorst MA, Vreman RA, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Goettsch WG. Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies. Value Health. 2022 Jun;25(6):992- 1001

    2022

  4. [12]

    Challenges and Criteria for Single-Arm Trials Leading to an Added Benefit in German Health Technology Assessments

    Tomeczkowski J, Heidbrede T, Eichinger B, Osowski U, Leverkus F, Schmitter S, Dintsios CM. Challenges and Criteria for Single-Arm Trials Leading to an Added Benefit in German Health Technology Assessments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Oct;43(10):1223-33

    2025

  5. [13]

    Strengthening health technology assessment for cancer treatments in Europe by integrating causal inference and target trial emulation

    Bucher HC, Chammartin F. Strengthening health technology assessment for cancer treatments in Europe by integrating causal inference and target trial emulation. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2025 May;52:101294

    2025

  6. [14]

    Use of Exter- nal Comparators for Health Technology Assessment Submissions Based on Single-Arm Trials

    Patel D, Grimson F, Mihaylova E, Wagner P, Warren J, van Engen A, Kim J. Use of Exter- nal Comparators for Health Technology Assessment Submissions Based on Single-Arm Trials. Value Health. 2021 Aug;24(8):1118-25

    2021

  7. [15]

    Use of Single-Arm Trials for US Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval in Oncology, 2002-2021

    Agrawal S, Arora S, Amiri-Kordestani L, de Claro RA, Fashoyin-Aje L, Gormley N, et al. Use of Single-Arm Trials for US Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval in Oncology, 2002-2021. JAMA Oncol. 2023 Feb 1;9(2):266-72. 15.PintoCA,BalantacZ,Mt-IsaS,LiuX,BraccoOL,ClarkeH,Terv...

    2002

  8. [16]

    Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments

    Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Benedict A. Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun;33(6):537-49. 17.PhillippoDM,AdesAE,DiasS,PalmerS,AbramsKR,WeltonNJ.NICEDSUTechnicalSupport Document 18: Methods for population-adj...

    2015

  9. [17]

    Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal

    Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Medical Decision Making. 2018;38(2):200-11. 19.IshakKJ,ChandlerC,LiuFF,KlijnS.AFrameworkforReliable,Transparent,andReproducible P...

    2018

  10. [21]

    Reframing population-adjusted indirect comparisons as a transportability problem: An estimand-based perspective and implications for health technology assessment

    Chandler C, Ishak KJ. Reframing population-adjusted indirect comparisons as a transportability problem: An estimand-based perspective and implications for health technology assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:260217041. 2026

    2026

  11. [22]

    Anchors Away: Navigating Unanchored Indirect Comparisons With Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression

    Chandler C, Ishak KJ. Anchors Away: Navigating Unanchored Indirect Comparisons With Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression. Value in Health. 2025;28(12):S498

    2025

  12. [23]

    Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods

    Caflisch RE. Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods. Acta Numerica. 1998;7:1-49. 20Chandler et al

    1998

  13. [24]

    Network meta- interpolation: Effect modification adjustment in network meta-analysis using subgroup analyses

    Harari O, Soltanifar M, Cappelleri JC, Verhoek A, Ouwens M, Daly C, Heeg B. Network meta- interpolation: Effect modification adjustment in network meta-analysis using subgroup analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2023 Mar;14(2):211-33

    2023

  14. [25]

    Don't disregard the data for lack of a likelihood: Bayesian synthetic likelihood for enhanced multilevel network meta-regression

    Campbell H, Margossian CC, Jansen JP, Gustafson P. Don't disregard the data for lack of a likelihood: Bayesian synthetic likelihood for enhanced multilevel network meta-regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:260311019. 2026. 28.Remiro-AzocarA,HeathA,BaioG.ParametricG-computationforc...

    2026

  15. [26]

    Target estimands for population-adjusted indirect comparisons

    Remiro-Azocar A. Target estimands for population-adjusted indirect comparisons. Stat Med. 2022 Dec 10;41(28):5558-69

    2022

  16. [27]

    Transportability of model-based estimands in evidence synthesis

    Remiro-Azocar A. Transportability of model-based estimands in evidence synthesis. Stat Med. 2024 Sep 30;43(22):4217-49

    2024

  17. [28]

    Marginal and conditional summary measures: transportability and compatibility across studies

    Remiro-Azócar A, Phillippo DM, Welton NJ, Dias S, Ades AE, Heath A, Baio G. Marginal and conditional summary measures: transportability and compatibility across studies. arXiv preprint arXiv:250721925. 2025

    2025

  18. [29]

    Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves

    Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Feb 1;12:9

    2012

  19. [30]

    mlumr: Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression for Indirect Treatment Comparisons

    Sofi-Mahmudi A, Chandler C. mlumr: Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression for Indirect Treatment Comparisons. R package version 0.1.0. Available from: https://github.com/choxos/mlumr. 2026

    2026

  20. [31]

    NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE

    Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, NJ W. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE. 2016

    2016

  21. [32]

    AnchorsAway:NavigatingUnanchoredIndirectComparisonswith Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression (ML-UMR)

    Ren S, Ren S, Welton NJ, Strong M. Quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in unanchored population-adjusted indirect comparisons. Res Synth Methods. 2025 May;16(3):509-27. 6.0.0.1. Acknowledgments.The authors are especially grateful to Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi for his...

    2025

  22. [33]

    NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE

    Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE. 2016

    2016

  23. [34]

    The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects

    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55

    1983

  24. [35]

    Causal Inference: What If

    Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020

    2020

  25. [36]

    Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal

    Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Medical Decision Making. 2018;38(2):200-11

    2018

  26. [37]

    Parametric G-computation for compatible indirect treatment comparisons with limited individual patient data

    Remiro-Azocar A, Heath A, Baio G. Parametric G-computation for compatible indirect treatment comparisons with limited individual patient data. Res Synth Methods. 2022 Nov;13(6):716-44

    2022

  27. [38]

    Model-based standardization using multiple imputation

    Remiro-Azocar A, Heath A, Baio G. Model-based standardization using multiple imputation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Feb 10;24(1):32

    2024

  28. [39]

    Advancing unanchored simulated treatment comparisons: A novel implementation and simulation study

    Ren S, Ren S, Welton NJ, Strong M. Advancing unanchored simulated treatment comparisons: A novel implementation and simulation study. Res Synth Methods. 2024 Jul;15(4):657-70

    2024

  29. [40]

    Implementation of G-computation on a simulated data set: demonstration of a causal inference technique

    Snowden JM, Rose S, Mortimer KM. Implementation of G-computation on a simulated data set: demonstration of a causal inference technique. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Apr 1;173(7):731-8

    2011

  30. [41]

    Anchors Away: Navigating Unanchored Indirect Comparisons With Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression

    Chandler C, Ishak KJ. Anchors Away: Navigating Unanchored Indirect Comparisons With Multilevel Unanchored Meta-Regression. Value in Health. 2025;28(12):S498. 33

    2025

  31. [42]

    Reframing population-adjusted indirect comparisons as a transportability problem: An estimand-based perspective and implications for health technology assessment

    Chandler C, Ishak KJ. Reframing population-adjusted indirect comparisons as a transportability problem: An estimand-based perspective and implications for health technology assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:260217041. 2026. 11.MorrisTP,WhiteIR,CrowtherMJ.Usingsimulationstudiest...

    2026

  32. [43]

    No head-to-head trial? simulate the missing arms

    Caro JJ, Ishak KJ. No head-to-head trial? simulate the missing arms. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):957-67

    2010

  33. [44]

    Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments

    Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Benedict A. Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun;33(6):537-49

    2015

  34. [45]

    Four alternative methodologies for simulated treat- ment comparison: How could the use of simulation be re-invigorated? Res Synth Methods

    Zhang L, Bujkiewicz S, Jackson D. Four alternative methodologies for simulated treat- ment comparison: How could the use of simulation be re-invigorated? Res Synth Methods. 2024 Mar;15(2):227-41. 16.IshakKJ,ChandlerC,LiuFF,KlijnS.AFrameworkforReliable,Transparent,andReproducib...

    2024

  35. [46]

    Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research

    Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, Xie J, Lu M, Hodgkins PS, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):940-7

    2012

  36. [47]

    Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept

    Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935-45

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.