Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed

被引:275
作者
Li, Tianjing [1 ]
Puhan, Milo A. [1 ]
Vedula, Swaroop S. [1 ]
Singh, Sonal [2 ]
Dickersin, Kay [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD 21212 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Baltimore, MD 21212 USA
来源
BMC MEDICINE | 2011年 / 9卷
关键词
METAANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; CONSISTENCY; TRIALS; HARMS; PAPER;
D O I
10.1186/1741-7015-9-79
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Network meta-analysis, in the context of a systematic review, is a meta-analysis in which multiple treatments (that is, three or more) are being compared using both direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across trials based on a common comparator. To ensure validity of findings from network meta-analyses, the systematic review must be designed rigorously and conducted carefully. Aspects of designing and conducting a systematic review for network meta-analysis include defining the review question, specifying eligibility criteria, searching for and selecting studies, assessing risk of bias and quality of evidence, conducting a network meta-analysis, interpreting and reporting findings. This commentary summarizes the methodologic challenges and research opportunities for network meta-analysis relevant to each aspect of the systematic review process based on discussions at a network meta-analysis methodology meeting we hosted in May 2010 at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Since this commentary reflects the discussion at that meeting, it is not intended to provide an overview of the field.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 26 条
[21]   Evaluation of networks of randomized trials [J].
Salanti, Georgia ;
Higgins, Julian P. T. ;
Ades, A. E. ;
Ioannidis, John P. A. .
STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2008, 17 (03) :279-301
[22]   Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial [J].
Salanti, Georgia ;
Ades, A. E. ;
Ioannidis, John P. A. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (02) :163-171
[23]   A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered [J].
Salanti, Georgia ;
Marinho, Valeria ;
Higgins, Julian P. T. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (08) :857-864
[24]   Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions [J].
Song, F. ;
Harvey, I. ;
Lilford, R. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 61 (05) :455-463
[25]   Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases [J].
Song, F. ;
Parekh, S. ;
Hooper, L. ;
Loke, Y. K. ;
Ryder, J. ;
Sutton, A. J. ;
Hing, C. ;
Kwok, C. S. ;
Pang, C. ;
Harvey, I. .
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2010, 14 (08) :1-+
[26]   Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews [J].
Song, Fujian ;
Loke, Yoon K. ;
Walsh, Tanya ;
Glenny, Anne-Marie ;
Eastwood, Alison J. ;
Altman, Douglas G. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 338 :932-935