Using indirect comparisons to compare interventions within a Cochrane review: a tool for comparative effectiveness research

Abstract

Aim: Assessing relative performance among competing interventions is an important part of comparative effectiveness research. Bayesian indirect comparisons add information to existing Cochrane reviews, such as which intervention is likely to perform best. However, heterogeneity variance priors may influence results and, potentially, clinical guidance. Methods: We highlight the features of Bayesian indirect comparisons using a case study of a Cochrane review update in asthma care. The probability that one self-management educational intervention outperforms others is estimated. Simulation studies investigate the effect of heterogeneity variance prior distributions. Results: Results suggest a 55% probability that individual education is best, followed by combination (39%) and group (6%). The intervention with few trials was sensitive to prior distributions. Conclusion: Bayesian indirect comparisons updates of Cochrane reviews are valuable comparative effectiveness research tools.