Methoden vergelijken
Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.
| Meta-analyse van individuele patiëntgegevens× | Netwerk-meta-analyse× | |
|---|---|---|
| Vakgebied | Evidentiesynthese | Evidentiesynthese |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Jaar van ontstaan≠ | 1990s | 2002 |
| Grondlegger≠ | Cochrane Collaboration, Pioneered by Stewart & Clarke | Lumley (2002) |
| Type | Method | Method |
| Oorspronkelijke bron≠ | Stewart, L. A., Clarke, M. J., & Cochrane IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group. (2015). Practical methodology of meta-analyses (including IPD) of randomised trials reporting time to event data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(10), MR000027. link ↗ | Lumley, T. (2002). Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine, 21(16), 2313–2324. DOI ↗ |
| Aliassen | IPD Meta-Analysis, Participant-Level Data Synthesis, One-Stage Meta-Analysis | Mixed Treatment Comparison, MTC, Indirect Comparison Meta-Analysis |
| Verwant | 1 | 1 |
| Samenvatting≠ | Individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is a systematic synthesis method where researchers obtain and analyze raw data at the patient level from multiple randomized controlled trials, rather than relying on published summary statistics (aggregate data). Pioneered by the Cochrane Collaboration and formalized by Stewart, Clarke, and Riley, IPD-MA is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis because it enables consistent outcome definition across trials, robust subgroup analysis, and detection of treatment-covariate interactions. Though time-intensive and resource-demanding, IPD-MA provides the most reliable estimates of intervention effects and is preferred for critical clinical decisions, particularly for identifying which patients benefit most from treatment. | Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a systematic method for comparing multiple interventions simultaneously within a single analytical framework, incorporating both direct evidence (head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (comparisons via common comparators). First formalized by Lumley in 2002, NMA allows researchers to rank treatments and quantify comparative effectiveness even when some treatment pairs have never been directly studied. |
| ScholarGateGegevensset ↗ |
|
|