Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

This paper aims to explore the potential usefulness and limitations of indirect comparisons in evaluating the relative efficacy of interventions. From a systematic review of antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery, we identified 11 sets of randomized trials that can be used to compare antibiotics both directly and indirectly. The discrepancy between the direct and the indirect comparison is defined as the absolute value of difference in log odds ratio. The adjusted indirect comparison has the advantages that the prognostic factors of participants in different trials can be partially taken into account and more uncertainty be incorporated into its result by providing a wider confidence interval. However, considerable discrepancies exist between the direct and the adjusted indirect comparisons. When there is no direct comparison, the adjusted indirect method may be used to obtain some evidence about the relative efficacy of competing interventions, although such indirect results should be interpreted with great caution. Further empirical and methodologic research is needed to explore the validity and generalizability of the adjusted indirect comparison for evaluating different interventions.


Journal article


Control clin trials

Publication Date





488 - 497


Antibiotic Prophylaxis, Colorectal Surgery, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Surgical Wound Infection