Literature DB >> 32742550

On evidence cycles in network meta-analysis.

Lifeng Lin1, Haitao Chu2, James S Hodges2.   

Abstract

As an extension of pairwise meta-analysis of two treatments, network meta-analysis has recently attracted many researchers in evidence-based medicine because it simultaneously synthesizes both direct and indirect evidence from multiple treatments and thus facilitates better decision making. The Bayesian hierarchical model is a popular method to implement network meta-analysis, and it is generally considered more powerful than conventional pairwise meta-analysis, leading to more precise effect estimates with narrower credible intervals. However, the improvement of effect estimates produced by Bayesian network meta-analysis has never been studied theoretically. This article shows that such improvement depends highly on evidence cycles in the treatment network. When all treatment comparisons are assumed to have different heterogeneity variances, a network meta-analysis produces posterior distributions identical to separate pairwise meta-analyses for treatment comparisons that are not contained in any evidence cycles. However, this equivalence does not hold under the commonly-used assumption of a common heterogeneity variance for all comparisons. Simulations and a case study are used to illustrate the equivalence of the Bayesian network and pairwise meta-analyses in certain networks.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian hierarchical model; evidence cycle; indirect evidence; network meta-analysis; relative effect; treatment network

Year:  2020        PMID: 32742550      PMCID: PMC7394478          DOI: 10.4310/sii.2020.v13.n4.a1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Interface        ISSN: 1938-7989            Impact factor:   0.582


  47 in total

1.  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

2.  GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: avoiding spurious judgments of imprecision in sparse networks.

Authors:  Romina Brignardello-Petersen; M Hassan Murad; Stephen D Walter; Shelley McLeod; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Bram Rochwerg; Holger J Schünemann; George Tomlinson; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-09-22       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Network meta-analysis, electrical networks and graph theory.

Authors:  Gerta Rücker
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 5.273

4.  Performance of Between-study Heterogeneity Measures in the Cochrane Library.

Authors:  Xiaoyue Ma; Lifeng Lin; Zhiyong Qu; Motao Zhu; Haitao Chu
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study.

Authors:  T C Smith; D J Spiegelhalter; A Thomas
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Sensitivity to Excluding Treatments in Network Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin; Haitao Chu; James S Hodges
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  The Hartung-Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis: A useful refinement but are there any residual concerns?

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Martin Law; Gerta Rücker; Guido Schwarzer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Sofia Dias; Nicky J Welton; Alex J Sutton; Deborah M Caldwell; Guobing Lu; A E Ades
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method.

Authors:  Joanna IntHout; John P A Ioannidis; George F Borm
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  2 in total

1.  Fragility index of network meta-analysis with application to smoking cessation data.

Authors:  Aiwen Xing; Haitao Chu; Lifeng Lin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Evidence inconsistency degrees of freedom in Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 1.051

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.