History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time. Issue 6 (30th June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ban, Joann K; Tadrous, Mina; Lu, Amy X; Cicinelli, Erin A; Cadarette, Suzanne M
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 8:Issue 6(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-06-30
• Subjects: diffusion of innovations -- indirect comparisons -- methodological innovation -- network meta-analysis -- social networks; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019110
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : 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.