Literature DB >> 23508418

Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions.

Areti Angeliki Veroniki1, Haris S Vasiliadis, Julian P T Higgins, Georgia Salanti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The assumption of consistency, defined as agreement between direct and indirect sources of evidence, underlies the increasingly popular method of network meta-analysis. No evidence exists so far regarding the extent of inconsistency in full networks of interventions or the factors that control its statistical detection.
METHODS: In this paper we assess the prevalence of inconsistency from data of 40 published networks of interventions involving 303 loops of evidence. Inconsistency is evaluated in each loop by contrasting direct and indirect estimates and by employing an omnibus test of consistency for the entire network. We explore whether different effect measures for dichotomous outcomes are associated with differences in inconsistency, and evaluate whether different ways to estimate heterogeneity affect the magnitude and detection of inconsistency.
RESULTS: Inconsistency was detected in from 2% to 9% of the tested loops, depending on the effect measure and heterogeneity estimation method. Loops that included comparisons informed by a single study were more likely to show inconsistency. About one-eighth of the networks were found to be inconsistent. The proportions of inconsistent loops do not materially change when different effect measures are used. Important heterogeneity or the overestimation of heterogeneity was associated with a small decrease in the prevalence of statistical inconsistency.
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that changing the effect measure might improve statistical consistency, and that an analysis of sensitivity to the assumptions and an estimator of heterogeneity might be needed before reaching a conclusion about the absence of statistical inconsistency, particularly in networks with few studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23508418      PMCID: PMC5411010          DOI: 10.1093/ije/dys222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  66 in total

1.  Prevention of pain on injection with propofol: a quantitative systematic review.

Authors:  P Picard; M R Tramèr
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 2.  Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.

Authors:  E A Engels; C H Schmid; N Terrin; I Olkin; J Lau
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  Network meta-analysis: simultaneous meta-analysis of common antiplatelet regimens after transient ischaemic attack or stroke.

Authors:  Vincent Thijs; Robin Lemmens; Steffen Fieuws
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis.

Authors:  J P Higgins; A Whitehead
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  The effectiveness of two-compound formulation calcipotriol and betamethasone dipropionate gel in the treatment of moderately severe scalp psoriasis: a systematic review of direct and indirect evidence.

Authors:  Julia M Bottomley; Rod S Taylor; Jacob Ryttov
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 2.580

Review 6.  Efficacy of systemic treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Sonia Sizto; Huiying Sun; Steven Feldman; Mary Kaye Willian; Aslam Anis
Journal:  Dermatology       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 5.366

Review 7.  A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing relapse in people with bipolar disorder.

Authors:  K Soares-Weiser; Y Bravo Vergel; S Beynon; G Dunn; M Barbieri; S Duffy; J Geddes; S Gilbody; S Palmer; N Woolacott
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  Estimating the power of indirect comparisons: a simulation study.

Authors:  Edward J Mills; Isabella Ghement; Christopher O'Regan; Kristian Thorlund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews.

Authors:  Fujian Song; Yoon K Loke; Tanya Walsh; Anne-Marie Glenny; Alison J Eastwood; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-04-03

10.  Efficacy of pharmacotherapies for short-term smoking abstinance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Edward J Mills; Ping Wu; Dean Spurden; Jon O Ebbert; Kumanan Wilson
Journal:  Harm Reduct J       Date:  2009-09-18
View more
  184 in total

Review 1.  Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Maggie J Westby; Jo C Dumville; Marta O Soares; Nikki Stubbs; Gill Norman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-06-22

2.  Borrowing of strength from indirect evidence in 40 network meta-analyses.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin; Aiwen Xing; Michael J Kofler; Mohammad Hassan Murad
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Quantifying and presenting overall evidence in network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in adult cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Preyanate Wilairat; Kirati Kengkla; Thanatchai Kaewpanan; Jirapat Kaewthong; Sorave Ruankon; Chulalak Subthaweesin; David D Stenehjem; Surasak Saokaew
Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2018-11-16

5.  A matrix-based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta-analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Sylwia Bujkiewicz; Martin Law; Richard D Riley; Ian R White
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Indirect bioequivalence assessment using network meta-analyses.

Authors:  A Ring; T B S Morris; K Hohl; R Schall
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 7.  SGLT2 inhibitors and risk of cancer in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Huilin Tang; Qi Dai; Weilong Shi; Suodi Zhai; Yiqing Song; Jiali Han
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 10.122

8.  Comparative effectiveness of chemopreventive interventions for colorectal cancer: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Sajesh K Veettil; Surasak Saokaew; Kean Ghee Lim; Siew Mooi Ching; Pochamana Phisalprapa; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-08

9.  Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fan Yang; Yuxuan Gao; Lan Zhang; Bo Zheng; Liu Wang; Huan Sun; Dingming Huang
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 10.  Comparisons of Interventions for Preventing Falls in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrea C Tricco; Sonia M Thomas; Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Jemila S Hamid; Elise Cogo; Lisa Strifler; Paul A Khan; Reid Robson; Kathryn M Sibley; Heather MacDonald; John J Riva; Kednapa Thavorn; Charlotte Wilson; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Gillian D Kerr; Fabio Feldman; Sumit R Majumdar; Susan B Jaglal; Wing Hui; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.