Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis

被引:765
作者
Cipriani, Andrea
Higgins, Julian P. T.
Geddes, John R.
Salanti, Georgia
机构
[1] Univ Verona, I-37134 Verona, Italy
[2] Univ Oxford, Oxford, England
[3] Univ Bristol, Bristol, Avon, England
[4] Univ York, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[5] Univ Ioannina, Sch Med, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
MULTIPLE-TREATMENTS; INCONSISTENCY; CONSISTENCY; GUIDELINES; TRIALS; BIAS;
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The increase in treatment options creates an urgent need for comparative effectiveness research. Randomized, controlled trials comparing several treatments are usually not feasible, so other methodological approaches are needed. Meta-analyses provide summary estimates of treatment effects by combining data from many studies. However, an important drawback is that standard meta-analyses can compare only 2 interventions at a time. A new meta-analytic technique, called network meta-analysis (or multiple treatments meta-analysis or mixed-treatment comparison), allows assessment of the relative effectiveness of several interventions, synthesizing evidence across a network of randomized trials. Despite the growing prevalence and influence of network meta-analysis in many fields of medicine, several issues need to be addressed when constructing one to avoid conclusions that are inaccurate, invalid, or not clearly justified. This article explores the scope and limitations of network meta-analysis and offers advice on dealing with heterogeneity, inconsistency, and potential sources of bias in the available evidence to increase awareness among physicians about some of the challenges in interpretation.
引用
收藏
页码:130 / W54
页数:11
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2009, INDIRECT EVIDENCE IN
[2]   The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A bests B and B bests Cinseparate trials, is A better than C? [J].
Baker S.G. ;
Kramer B.S. .
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2 (1) :1-5
[3]   The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: An international prospective register of systematic reviews [J].
Alison Booth ;
Mike Clarke ;
Gordon Dooley ;
Davina Ghersi ;
David Moher ;
Mark Petticrew ;
Lesley Stewart .
Systematic Reviews, 1 (1)
[4]   The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Bucher, HC ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Griffith, LE ;
Walter, SD .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :683-691
[5]   Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence [J].
Caldwell, DM ;
Ades, AE ;
Higgins, JPT .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7521) :897-900
[6]   Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions [J].
Chaimani, Anna ;
Salanti, Georgia .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2012, 3 (02) :161-176
[7]   Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis [J].
Cipriani, Andrea ;
Barbui, Corrado ;
Salanti, Georgia ;
Rendell, Jennifer ;
Brown, Rachel ;
Stockton, Sarah ;
Purgato, Marianna ;
Spineli, Loukia M. ;
Goodwin, Guy M. ;
Geddes, John R. .
LANCET, 2011, 378 (9799) :1306-1315
[8]   Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis [J].
Cipriani, Andrea ;
Furukawa, Toshiaki A. ;
Salanti, Georgia ;
Geddes, John R. ;
Higgins, Julian P. T. ;
Churchill, Rachel ;
Watanabe, Norio ;
Nakagawa, Atsuo ;
Omori, Ichiro M. ;
McGuire, Hugh ;
Tansella, Michele ;
Barbui, Corrado .
LANCET, 2009, 373 (9665) :746-758
[9]   Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation [J].
Cooper, Nicola J. ;
Sutton, Alex J. ;
Morris, Danielle ;
Ades, A. E. ;
Welton, Nicky J. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (14) :1861-1881
[10]   Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes [J].
Deeks, JJ .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (11) :1575-1600