Estimation and Adjustment of Bias in Randomized Evidence by Using Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis
- 14 May 2010
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
- Vol. 173 (3), 613-629
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2010.00639.x
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 43 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bias Modelling in Evidence SynthesisJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2008
- Estimates of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevalence and Proportion Diagnosed Based on Bayesian Multiparameter Synthesis of Surveillance DataJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2008
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyBMJ, 2008
- Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment ComparisonsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 2006
- Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidenceBMJ, 2005
- Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisonsStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and FitJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 2002
- Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta‐epidemiological’ researchStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?The Lancet, 1998
- Bias in Treatment Assignment in Controlled Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1983