Cargando…

History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the early diffusion of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs. DESIGN: Systematic literature synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: English language papers that used i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ban, Joann K, Tadrous, Mina, Lu, Amy X, Cicinelli, Erin A, Cadarette, Suzanne M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6045745/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29961001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019110
_version_ 1783339719068745728
author Ban, Joann K
Tadrous, Mina
Lu, Amy X
Cicinelli, Erin A
Cadarette, Suzanne M
author_facet Ban, Joann K
Tadrous, Mina
Lu, Amy X
Cicinelli, Erin A
Cadarette, Suzanne M
author_sort Ban, Joann K
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To characterise the early diffusion of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs. DESIGN: Systematic literature synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: English language papers that used indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study the efficacy or safety of three or more interventions, where at least one was a drug. DATA EXTRACTION: The number of publications and authors was plotted by year and type: methodological contribution, review or empirical application. Author and methodological details were summarised for empirical applications, and animated coauthorship networks were created to visualise contributors by country and affiliation type (academia, industry, government or other) over time. RESULTS: We identified 477 papers (74 methodological contributions, 42 reviews and 361 empirical applications) by 1689 distinct authors from 1997 to 2013. Prior to 2002, only three applications were published, with contributions from the USA (n=2) and Canada (n=1). The number of applications gradually increased annually with rapid uptake between 2011 and 2013 (n=254, 71%). Early diffusion occurred primarily in Europe with the first application credited to the UK in 2003. Application spread to other European countries in 2005, and may have been supported by regulatory requirements for drug approval. By the end of 2013, contributions included 49% credited to Europe (22% UK, 27% other), 37% credited to North America (11% Canada, 26% USA) and 14% from other regions. CONCLUSION: Indirect comparison meta-analytic methods are an important innovation for health research. Although Canada and the USA were the first to apply these methods, Europe led their diffusion. The increase in uptake of these methods may have been facilitated by acceptance by regulatory agencies, which are calling for more comparative drug effect data to assist in drug accessibility and reimbursement decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6045745
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60457452018-07-18 History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time Ban, Joann K Tadrous, Mina Lu, Amy X Cicinelli, Erin A Cadarette, Suzanne M BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVE: To characterise the early diffusion of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs. DESIGN: Systematic literature synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: English language papers that used indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study the efficacy or safety of three or more interventions, where at least one was a drug. DATA EXTRACTION: The number of publications and authors was plotted by year and type: methodological contribution, review or empirical application. Author and methodological details were summarised for empirical applications, and animated coauthorship networks were created to visualise contributors by country and affiliation type (academia, industry, government or other) over time. RESULTS: We identified 477 papers (74 methodological contributions, 42 reviews and 361 empirical applications) by 1689 distinct authors from 1997 to 2013. Prior to 2002, only three applications were published, with contributions from the USA (n=2) and Canada (n=1). The number of applications gradually increased annually with rapid uptake between 2011 and 2013 (n=254, 71%). Early diffusion occurred primarily in Europe with the first application credited to the UK in 2003. Application spread to other European countries in 2005, and may have been supported by regulatory requirements for drug approval. By the end of 2013, contributions included 49% credited to Europe (22% UK, 27% other), 37% credited to North America (11% Canada, 26% USA) and 14% from other regions. CONCLUSION: Indirect comparison meta-analytic methods are an important innovation for health research. Although Canada and the USA were the first to apply these methods, Europe led their diffusion. The increase in uptake of these methods may have been facilitated by acceptance by regulatory agencies, which are calling for more comparative drug effect data to assist in drug accessibility and reimbursement decisions. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6045745/ /pubmed/29961001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019110 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Ban, Joann K
Tadrous, Mina
Lu, Amy X
Cicinelli, Erin A
Cadarette, Suzanne M
History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time
title History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time
title_full History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time
title_fullStr History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time
title_full_unstemmed History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time
title_short History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time
title_sort history and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6045745/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29961001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019110
work_keys_str_mv AT banjoannk historyandpublicationtrendsinthediffusionandearlyuptakeofindirectcomparisonmetaanalyticmethodstostudydrugsanimatedcoauthorshipnetworksovertime
AT tadrousmina historyandpublicationtrendsinthediffusionandearlyuptakeofindirectcomparisonmetaanalyticmethodstostudydrugsanimatedcoauthorshipnetworksovertime
AT luamyx historyandpublicationtrendsinthediffusionandearlyuptakeofindirectcomparisonmetaanalyticmethodstostudydrugsanimatedcoauthorshipnetworksovertime
AT cicinellierina historyandpublicationtrendsinthediffusionandearlyuptakeofindirectcomparisonmetaanalyticmethodstostudydrugsanimatedcoauthorshipnetworksovertime
AT cadarettesuzannem historyandpublicationtrendsinthediffusionandearlyuptakeofindirectcomparisonmetaanalyticmethodstostudydrugsanimatedcoauthorshipnetworksovertime