English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We discuss how to handle matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) from a data analyst's perspective. We introduce several multivariate data analysis methods to assess the appropriateness of MAIC for a given set of baseline characteristics. These methods focus on comparing the baseline variables used in the matching of a study that provides the summary statistics or aggregated data (AD) and a study that provides individual patient level data (IPD). The methods identify situations when no numerical solutions are possible with the MAIC method. This helps to avoid misleading results being produced. Moreover, it has been observed that sometimes contradicting results are reported by two sets of MAIC analyses produced by two teams, each having their own IPD and applying MAIC using the AD published by the other team. We show that an intrinsic property of the MAIC estimated weights can be a contributing factor for this phenomenon.

Geometric approaches to assessing the numerical feasibility for conducting matching‐adjusted indirect comparisons