Literature DB >> 32935913

Degree irregularity and rank probability bias in network meta-analysis.

Annabel L Davies1, Tobias Galla1,2.   

Abstract

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical technique for the comparison of treatment options. Outcomes of Bayesian NMA include estimates of treatment effects, and the probabilities that each treatment is ranked best, second best and so on. How exactly network topology affects the accuracy and precision of these outcomes is not fully understood. Here we carry out a simulation study and find that disparity in the number of trials involving different treatments leads to a systematic bias in estimated rank probabilities. This bias is associated with an increased variation in the precision of treatment effect estimates. Using ideas from the theory of complex networks, we define a measure of "degree irregularity" to quantify asymmetry in the number of studies involving each treatment. Our simulations indicate that more regular networks have more precise treatment effect estimates and smaller bias of rank probabilities. Conversely, these topological effects are not observed for the accuracy of treatment effect estimates. This reinforces the importance of taking into account multiple measures, rather than making decisions based on a single metric. We also find that degree regularity is a better indicator for the accuracy and precision of parameter estimates in NMA than both the total number of studies in a network and the disparity in the number of trials per comparison. These results have implications for planning future trials. We demonstrate that choosing trials which reduce the network's irregularity can improve the precision and accuracy of parameter estimates from NMA.
© 2020 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  network meta-analysis; network topology and degree irregularity; planning future trials; rank probability; simulation study

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32935913     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1454

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


  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.