Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of Tanreqing for curing the hand-foot-mouth disease. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data are electronically searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness and safety of Tanreqing for hand-foot-mouth disease till February 2013. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature was screened, data were extracted, and the methodological quality of included studies was also assessed. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.7 software. Results Twelve RCTs on Tanreqing versus ribavirin involving 1 258 cases and 27 RCTs on Tanreqing plus ribavirin versus ribavirin involving 3 289 cases were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared to ribavirin, Tanreqing has higher total efficiency in the treatment of hand-foot-mouth disease (OR=5.03, 95%CI 3.28 to 7.71, Plt;0.000 01), cooling time (MD= –1.09, 95%CI –1.51 to –0.68, Plt;0.000 01), simplex regression time (MD= –0.90, 95%CI –1.20 to –0.60, Plt;0.000 01), and healing time (MD= –1.76, 95%CI –2.52 to –0.99, Plt;0.000 01), with significant differences. Compared to ribavirin, the group of Tanreqing plus ribavirin has higher total efficiency on treatment of hand-foot-mouth disease (OR=5.32, 95%CI 4.02 to 7.06, Plt;0.000 01), cooling time (MD= –1.32, 95%CI –1.63 to –1.01, Plt;0.000 01), simplex regression time (MD= –0.5, 95%CI –0.98 to –0.2, Plt;0.000 01), and healing time (MD= –1.41, 95%CI –1.83 to –0.98, Plt;0.000 01), with significant differences. The results of indirect comparative analysis showed that, there was no significant difference in the treatment options of Tanreqing plus ribavirin and Tanreqing alone concerning total efficiency, cooling time, simplex regression time, and healing time. Conclusion The study shows that Tanreqing alone and Tanreqing plus ribavirin are similar for curing the hand-foot-mouth disease, and both groups have better clinical effectiveness than ribavirin alone.
直接证据来自直接比较我们关注的干预措施用于我们关注的患者人群，并测量患者重要结局的研究。间接证据可由以下4种方式之一产生。第一，患者可能与我们关注的患者不同（适用性一词常用于这类间接性）。第二，所检验的干预措施可能与我们关注的干预措施不同。有关患者和干预措施间接性的决策取决于对生物或社会因素差异是否大到可能使效应尺度出现预期的较大差异的考虑。第三，结果可能有别于最初设定的结局指标——如替代结果本身不重要，但测量之是基于替代结果的变化反映患者重要结局变化这一假设。第四类间接性在概念上与前三类不同，发生于临床医生必须在未经直接比较的两种干预措施间做出选择时。这种情况下比较治疗方案需要特定的统计方法，并根据患者人群、联合干预措施、结局测量指标及备选干预措施试验方法的差异程度，将证据级别降低1或2级。
Indirect comparison refers to a comparison of different healthcare interventions using data from separate studies, and is often used because of a lack of, or insufficient evidence from head-to-head comparative trials. We aimed to summarize the definition, fundamental theory, type, relevant statistical contents, and to clarify some question on how to use indirect comparison, in order to attract more researchers' attention and promote methodological development of indirect comparison.
Due to the lack of head to head direct comparison evidence, applying indirect comparison (ITC) as well as network meta-analysis to compare multiple interventions becomes a new popular and powerful statistical technique. However, its theoretical system still needs improvement. In this article, we briefly introduce and summarize its progress concerning basic concepts, method assumptions, influencing factors of effectiveness, and software for analysis, so as to help researchers better understand the method and promote its application in evidence production.
ObjectiveTo investigate the status of research and development methods of Cochrane overviews. MethodsThe Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched up to March 2014 to identify Cochrane overviews. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed and analyzed search strategy, quality assessment method, data analysis, and study results. ResultsA total of 18 Cochrane overviews were included. Among them, 4 (22.2%) overviews included formal statistical indirect comparison; 8 (44.4%) included only results from direct comparison; 6 (33.4%) only systematically analyzed current studies without data pooling; 12 (66.7%) only searched The Cochrane Library, while 6 (33.3%) expanded search to other databases; 14 (77.8%) applied the AMSTAR tool to assess methodological quality of included literature; 12 (66.7%) applied the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence; and 9 (50%) yielded new outcomes. ConclusionCurrently, the development and reporting standards of Cochrane overviews are still immature. Investigators should choose proper methods based on research objectives when developing Cochrane overviews.
ITC (Indirect Treatment Comparison) software and indirect procedure of Stata software are especially used for indirect comparison nowadays, both of which possess the characteristics of friendly concise interface and support for menu operation. ITC software needs the application of other software to yield effect estimation and its confidence interval of direct comparison firstly; while Stata-indirect procedure can complete direct comparison internally and also operate using commands, which simplifies complicated process of indirect comparison. However, both of them only perform "single-pathway" of data transferring and pooling, which is a common deficiency. From the results, their results are of high-degree similarity.
It is a challenge for clinicians and diagnostic systematic reviewers to determine the best test in clinical diagnosis and screening. Meanwhile, it also becomes the new chance and challenge for diagnostic test meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis has been commonly used in intervention systematic reviews, which can compare the effect size of all available interventions and to choose the best intervention. Network meta-analysis of diagnostic test can be defined as comparing all available diagnostic technologies in the same conditions based on the common reference tests. In order to provide the guide for diagnostic systematic reviewers, we aims to introduce four methods of conducting diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis, and to explore two ranking methods of network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, WanFang Data, CNKI and CBM databases were searched to collect the studies on different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease from inception to May 15th, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, data were synthesized by using MetaDisc 1.4, RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The pooled sensitivity (Sen), pooled specificity (Spe), pooled positive likelihood ratio (+LR), pooled negative likelihood ratio (–LR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) were used to assess the diagnostic value of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance.ResultsTwenty diagnostic studies were included, which involved 1 357 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that (1) based on patient: compared with the gold standard, the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.87, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.90), (0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.92), (7.33, 95%CI 4.74 to 11.32), (0.15, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.20), (49.53, 95%CI 27.46 to 89.36), (0.93, 95%CI 0.91 to 0.95), 20.00% and 65.00%, respectively. (2) Based on blood vessels: the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.81, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.85), (0.87, 95%CI 0.81 to 0.91), (6.37, 95%CI 4.37 to 9.30), (0.22, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.27), (29.58, 95%CI 18.53 to 47.22), (0.89, 95%CI 0.86 to 0.92), 20.00% and 61.00%, respectively. (3) Subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in AUROC of different types of cardiac magnetic resonance, but significant difference was found in AUROC of 1.5T and 3.0T magnetic field intensity.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that, compared with gold standard, cardiac magnetic resonance can be regarded as an effective and feasible method for preoperative staging of breast cancer.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are currently the gold standard for the treatment effect comparisons; however, it is sometimes not feasible to conduct an RCT due to ethical and economic reasons. In the absence of evidence for head-to-head RCT direct comparison, the indirect comparison technique is an effective and resource-saving alternative. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is an attractive method in the field of population-adjusted indirect comparisons between two trials. It can adjust for between-trial imbalances in the distribution of observed covariates by weighting the available individual patient data of the studied intervention and then match the aggregated data of the controlled intervention. Subsequently, the treatment effect comparison can be evaluated through the post-matched population. Although MAIC is gaining increasing attention in clinical research, especially in the evaluation of new drugs, efforts are still largely required for knowledge dissemination in China. In this paper, we briefly introduced the concepts, research value and examples, and pros and cons of MAIC.
When there is a lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials between two interventions of interest, indirect comparison methods can be employed to estimate their relative treatment effects. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is a population-adjusted indirect comparison method that utilizes a weighting approach. Unanchored MAIC is particularly applicable in scenarios where a common control group between the two interventions is not available. This article introduces the background and mathematical theory of unanchored MAIC, along with a demonstration of the operational steps and interpretation of results through an application example.