Literature DB >> 30338058

Estimating the contribution of studies in network meta-analysis: paths, flows and streams.

Theodoros Papakonstantinou1, Adriani Nikolakopoulou1, Gerta Rücker2, Anna Chaimani3, Guido Schwarzer2, Matthias Egger1, Georgia Salanti1.   

Abstract

In network meta-analysis, it is important to assess the influence of the limitations or other characteristics of individual studies on the estimates obtained from the network. The percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much each direct treatment effect contributes to each treatment effect estimate from network meta-analysis, is crucial in this context. We use ideas from graph theory to derive the percentage that is contributed by each direct treatment effect. We start with the 'projection' matrix in a two-step network meta-analysis model, called the H matrix, which is analogous to the hat matrix in a linear regression model. We develop a method to translate H entries to percentage contributions based on the observation that the rows of H  can be interpreted as flow networks, where a stream is defined as the composition of a path and its associated flow. We present an algorithm that identifies the flow of evidence in each path and decomposes it into direct comparisons. To illustrate the methodology, we use two published networks of interventions. The first compares no treatment, quinolone antibiotics, non-quinolone antibiotics and antiseptics for underlying eardrum perforations and the second compares 14 antimanic drugs. We believe that this approach is a useful and novel addition to network meta-analysis methodology, which allows the consistent derivation of the percentage contributions of direct evidence from individual studies to network treatment effects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  flow networks; indirect evidence; percentage contributions; projection matrix

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30338058      PMCID: PMC6148216.2          DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.14770.2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  F1000Res        ISSN: 2046-1402


  6 in total

1.  Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Stephanie Weibel; Gerta Rücker; Leopold Hj Eberhart; Nathan L Pace; Hannah M Hartl; Olivia L Jordan; Debora Mayer; Manuel Riemer; Maximilian S Schaefer; Diana Raj; Insa Backhaus; Antonia Helf; Tobias Schlesinger; Peter Kienbaum; Peter Kranke
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-10-19

2.  The statistical importance of a study for a network meta-analysis estimate.

Authors:  Gerta Rücker; Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Theodoros Papakonstantinou; Georgia Salanti; Richard D Riley; Guido Schwarzer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  ROB-MEN: a tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Virginia Chiocchia; Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Julian P T Higgins; Matthew J Page; Theodoros Papakonstantinou; Andrea Cipriani; Toshi A Furukawa; George C M Siontis; Matthias Egger; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 8.775

4.  Comparison of Various Vagal Maneuvers for Supraventricular Tachycardia by Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Edward Pei-Chuan Huang; Chi-Hsin Chen; Cheng-Yi Fan; Chih-Wei Sung; Pei Chun Lai; Yen Ta Huang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-03

5.  Network meta-analysis and random walks.

Authors:  Annabel L Davies; Theodoros Papakonstantinou; Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Gerta Rücker; Tobias Galla
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Julian P T Higgins; Theodoros Papakonstantinou; Anna Chaimani; Cinzia Del Giovane; Matthias Egger; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 11.069

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.