Incorporating multiple interventions in meta-analysis: an evaluation of the mixed treatment comparison with the adjusted indirect comparison

Table 1 Drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents on revascularization status[22].

Treatment Comparison	Mixed Treatment Comparison		Adjusted Indirect Comparison
	Odds Ratio	95% Credible Interval	Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
AES vs. BMS	2.61	(1.32, 5.44)	2.51	(1.22, 5.56)
Polymeric EES vs. BMS	0.31	(0.04, 1.63)	0.37	(0.06, 2.14)
MES vs. BMS	0.93	(0.32, 2.88)	0.91	(0.28, 3.19)
Apolymeric PES vs. BMS	0.64	(0.44, 0.93)	0.64	(0.44, 0.93)
Polymeric PES vs. BMS	0.26	(0.19, 0.36)	0.27	(0.20, 0.37)
Polymeric SES vs. BMS	0.17	(0.12, 0.24)	0.20	(0.13, 0.30)
Polymeric EES vs. AES	0.12	(0.01, 0.73)	0.14	(0.02, 1.04)*
MES vs. AES	0.36	(0.10, 1.34)	0.36	(0.09, 1.44)
Apolymeric PES vs. AES	0.25	(0.11, 0.54)	0.25	(0.11, 1.57)
Polymeric PES vs. AES	0.10	(0.05, 0.21)	0.10	(0.04, 0.23)
Polymeric SES vs. AES	0.07	(0.03, 0.14)	0.07	(0.03, 0.18)
MES vs. Polymeric EES	3.00	(0.40, 30.08)	2.45	(0.28, 21.48)***
Apolymeric PES vs. Polymeric EES	2.06	(0.37, 16.49)	1.72	(0.26, 11.08)***
Polymeric PES vs. Polymeric EES	0.85	(0.15, 6.79)	0.72	(0.11, 4.61)***
Polymeric SES vs. Polymeric EES	0.56	(0.10, 4.53)	0.54	(0.08, 3.50)***
Apolymeric PES vs. MES	0.69	(0.21, 2.16))	0.70	(0.20, 2.42)
Polymeric PES vs. MES	0.28	(0.09, 0.87)	0.29	(0.08, 1.00)
Polymeric SES vs. MES	0.19	(0.06, 0.58	0.21	(0.06, 0.77)
Polymeric PES vs. Apolymeric PES	0.41	(0.25, 0.67)	0.42	(0.26, 0.68)
Polymeric SES vs. Apolymeric PES	0.27	(0.16, 0.45)	0.31	(0.17, 0.55)
Polymeric SES vs. Polymeric PES	0.66	(0.41, 1.05)	0.74	(0.43, 1.25)

Bolded text denotes head-to-head meta-analysis evaluations. * Mixed treatment method identifies a significant effect, adjusted indirect comparison does not, adjusted indirect comparison identifies significant effect, mixed treatment comparison does not. ** Direction of effect differs between approaches, ***Important effect size differences.

ISSN: 1745-6215