Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Cross-trial comparisons in reviews: proceed with caution

Nature Reviews Rheumatology volume 16, pages 663–664 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

To gauge the relative efficacy of treatments, authors of review articles and commentary might attempt to compare results across clinical trials, but failure to recognize inherent differences across studies or apply proper statistical principles could yield flawed conclusions. Several approaches can mitigate the risks in these cross-trial comparisons.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L., Blackmore, H. & Kitas, G. D. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors. Rheumatol. Int. 31, 1409–1417 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Naylor, C. D. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet 345, 840–842 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang, S. & Lee, T. H. Beyond evidence-based medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 1983–1985 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee, C. K. et al. Historical cross-trial comparisons for competing treatments in advanced breast cancer-an empirical analysis of bias. Eur. J. Cancer 46, 541–548 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergeris, A., Tse, T. & Zarin, D. A. Trialists’ intent to share individual participant data as disclosed at ClinicalTrials.gov. JAMA 319, 406–408 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bucher, H. C., Guyatt, G. H., Griffith, L. E. & Walter, S. D. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50, 683–691 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Warren, R. B. et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy in patient with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with ixekizumab versus secukinumab. Br. J. Dermatol. 178, 1064–1071 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mills, E. J., Ghement, I., O’Regan, C. & Thorlund, K. Estimating the power of indirect comparisons: a simulation study. PLoS ONE 6, 1–8 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, R., Bowman, L., Landray, M. & Peto, R. The magic of randomization versus the myth of real-world evidence. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 674–678 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hutton, B. et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann. Intern. Med. 162, 777–784 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank E. Brittain and E. Goldmuntz for their review of and assistance with the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Keith M. Sullivan

  2. Rho Federal Systems, Durham, NC, USA

    Lynette Keyes-Elstein

Authors
  1. Keith M. Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynette Keyes-Elstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith M. Sullivan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sullivan, K.M., Keyes-Elstein, L. Cross-trial comparisons in reviews: proceed with caution. Nat Rev Rheumatol 16, 663–664 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-020-0492-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-020-0492-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing