Background The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the most valid design for evaluating
the relative efficacy of healthcare technology. However, many competing interventions have …

Objective To investigate the agreement between direct and indirect comparisons of
competing healthcare interventions. Design Meta-epidemiological study based on sample of …

Background: Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate
between the effects of competing interventions. However, head‐to‐head studies are unlikely …

Evidence-based health-care decision making requires comparisons of all relevant
competing interventions. In the absence of randomized, controlled trials involving a direct …

The design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should incorporate characteristics (such
as concealment of randomised allocation and blinding of participants and personnel) that …

Background Systematic review and meta-analysis currently underpin much of evidence-
based medicine. Such methodologies bring order to previous research, but future research …

Background There is controversy about the value of evidence about the effectiveness of
healthcare interventions from non-randomised study designs. Advocates for quasi …

Objective To investigate basic assumptions and other methodological problems in the
application of indirect comparison in systematic reviews of competing healthcare …

Objective: To determine the validity of adjusted indirect comparisons by using data from
published meta-analyses of randomised trials. Design: Direct comparison of different …

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health
interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence …