Accès gratuit
Numéro
Thérapie
Volume 64, Numéro 3, Mai-Juin 2009
Page(s) 229 - 232
Section Évaluation du Médicament/Drug evaluation
DOI https://doi.org/10.2515/therapie/2009032
Publié en ligne 13 août 2009
  1. Ioannidis JP. Indirect comparisons: the mesh and mess of clinical trials. Lancet; 2006: (368): 1470-2
  2. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Star Med 2004; 20: 3105-24 [CrossRef]
  3. Cucherat M. Les comparaisons indirectes : méthodes et validité. 2009, Haute Autorité de Santé - Service évaluation des médicaments: Paris. p. 66
  4. Bombardier C, Maetzel A. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new treatments: efficacy versus effectiveness studies? Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58 Suppl 1: I82-5
  5. Gartlehner G, Moore CG. Direct versus indirect comparisons: a summary of the evidence. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2008; 24(2): 170–7
  6. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 326 (7387): 472 [Letter]
  7. Falissard B, Izard V, Xerri B, et al. Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Listed Drugs (REAL): a new method for an early comparison of the effectiveness of approved health technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2009. in press
  8. Boissel JP, Collet JP, Lievre M, et al. An effect model for the assessment of drug benefit: example of antiarrhythmic drugs in postmyocardial infarction patients. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1993; 22(3): 356-63
  9. De Leeuw J. Unidimensional scaling, in encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, BS Everitt and D Howell, editors. 2005, John Wiley & Sons
  10. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. International stroke trial collaborative group: indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9(26): 1-134