Literature DB >> 26053423

Unsolved issues of mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: network size and inconsistency.

Sibylle Sturtz1, Ralf Bender2,3.   

Abstract

Indirect comparisons and mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses are increasingly used in medical research. These methods allow a simultaneous analysis of all relevant interventions in a connected network even if direct evidence regarding two interventions is missing. The framework of MTC meta-analysis provides a flexible approach for complex networks. However, this method has yet some unsolved problems, in particular the choice of the network size and the assessment of inconsistency. In this paper, we describe the practical application of MTC meta-analysis by using a data set on antidepressants. We focus on the impact of the size of the chosen network and the assumption of consistency. A larger network is based on more evidence but may show inconsistencies, whereas a smaller network contains less evidence but may show no clear inconsistencies. A choice is required which network should be used in practice. In summary, MTC meta-analysis represents a promising approach; however, clear application standards are still lacking. Especially, standards for the identification of inconsistency and the way to deal with potential inconsistency are required.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  indirect comparison; mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis; model assumptions

Year:  2012        PMID: 26053423     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Synth Methods        ISSN: 1759-2879            Impact factor:   5.273


  22 in total

Review 1.  Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-Analyses.

Authors:  Corinna Kiefer; Sibylle Sturtz; Ralf Bender
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 2.  Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; David H Tian; Christopher Cao; Deborah Black; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

3.  Perspective: Network Meta-analysis Reaches Nutrition Research: Current Status, Scientific Concepts, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Lukas Schwingshackl; Guido Schwarzer; Gerta Rücker; Joerg J Meerpohl
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 8.701

4.  Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians.

Authors:  Benjamin Rouse; Anna Chaimani; Tianjing Li
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 5.  An overview of conducting systematic reviews with network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Deborah M Caldwell
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2014-09-29

6.  Visualizing inconsistency in network meta-analysis by independent path decomposition.

Authors:  Ulrike Krahn; Harald Binder; Jochem König
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Choosing Optimal Antibiotics for the Treatment of Patients Infected With Enterobacteriaceae: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Ruiying Han; Mengmeng Teng; Ying Zhang; Tao Zhang; Taotao Wang; Jiaojiao Chen; Sihan Li; Bo Yang; Yaling Shi; Yalin Dong; Yan Wang
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 5.810

8.  Extending Treatment Networks in Health Technology Assessment: How Far Should We Go?

Authors:  Deborah M Caldwell; Sofia Dias; Nicky J Welton
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 9.  Multivariate meta-analysis of mixed outcomes: a Bayesian approach.

Authors:  Sylwia Bujkiewicz; John R Thompson; Alex J Sutton; Nicola J Cooper; Mark J Harrison; Deborah P M Symmons; Keith R Abrams
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Assumptions of Mixed Treatment Comparisons in Health Technology Assessments - Challenges and Possible Steps for Practical Application.

Authors:  Stefanie Reken; Sibylle Sturtz; Corinna Kiefer; Yvonne-Beatrice Böhler; Beate Wieseler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.