Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 62, Issue 12 , Pages 1279-1283 , December 2009

A network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect comparisons between glaucoma drugs to rank effectiveness in lowering intraocular pressure

  • Rikkert van der Valk

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Carroll A.B. Webers

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Thomas Lumley

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
    • ,
  • Fred Hendrikse

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Martin H. Prins

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Jan S.A.G. Schouten

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Hospital, PO box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. Tel. +31-0-43-387-53-44; fax: +31-0-43-387-53-43.

,Accepted 26 April 2008.

References 

  1. Netland PA, Landry T, Sullivan EK, Andrew R, Silver L, Weiner A, et al. Travoprost compared with latanoprost and timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132:472–484
  2. Boyle JE, Ghosh K, Gieser DK, Adamson IA Dorzolamide-Timolol Study Group. A randomized trial comparing the dorzolamide-timolol combination given twice daily to monotherapy with timolol and dorzolamide. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1945–1951
  3. Strahlman E, Tipping R, Vogel R International Dorzolamide Study Group. A double-masked, randomized 1-year study comparing dorzolamide (Trusopt), timolol, and betaxolol. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:1009–1016
  4. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331:897–900
  5. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:2313–2324
  6. Psaty BM, Lumley T, Furberg CD, Schellenbaum G, Pahor M, Alderman MH, et al. Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. JAMA. 2003;289:2534–2544
  7. Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;369:201–207
  8. Berlin JA, Laird NM, Sacks HS, Chalmers TC. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989;8:141–151
  9. van der Valk R, Webers CAB, Schouten JSAG, Zegers MP, Hendrikse F, Prins MH. Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of all commonly used glaucoma drugs, a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1177–1185
  10. In:  Liesegang TJ,  Skuta GL,  Cantor LB editor. Basic and clinical science course. 2003–2004 ed. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2003;Section 10 Glaucoma
  11. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101:447–459
  12. Hasselblad V. Meta-analysis of multi-treatment studies. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:37–43
  13. Lu G and Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23:3105–3124.

 No grant was received for this study.

PII: S0895-4356(09)00176-0

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.012

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 62, Issue 12 , Pages 1279-1283 , December 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution