Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0272989X08330120v1
29/3/273    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hawkins, N.
Right arrow Articles by Woods, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hawkins, N.
Right arrow Articles by Woods, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reviews

How Far Do You Go? Efficient Searching for Indirect Evidence

Neil Hawkins, PhD, MSc

Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK, neil.hawkins{at}oxfordoutcomes.com

David A. Scott, MA

Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK

Beth Woods, BA

Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK

Background. Indirect evidence is particularly valuable in health care decision making when direct trial evidence comparing relevant treatments is absent or limited. Current approaches using a predetermined set of comparators in the search query may fail to identify all relevant indirect evidence. Purpose. To present a framework for the efficient design of search strategies for identifying clinical trials providing indirect evidence for a treatment comparison. Findings. The authors present 2 search strategies that differ from traditional search strategies in using a series of iterative searches to identify the set of relevant comparators. In both, the comparators included in each search are determined by the results of previous searches. For a given number of searches, the strategies presented will find all indirect comparisons that include a certain number of comparators linking the treatments of interest. Methods of estimating the value of indirect evidence via a given number of comparators linking the treatments of interest are presented, thus allowing the burden of additional searching to be traded off against the likely impact of finding more distant comparisons. A practical illustration of the search strategies in the context of informing a network meta-analysis of second-line treatments for non-small cell lung cancer is presented. Conclusions. The iterative strategies presented offer a means of identifying such evidence and allow the researcher to determine the optimal scope of the search by estimating the value of additional indirect evidence.

Key Words: evidence synthesis • indirect evidence • search strategies • oncology.

This version was published on May 1, 2009

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 29, No. 3, 273-281 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08330120
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?