Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 332-345

  Veroniki, Areti Angeliki ^a   Higgins, Haris S Vasiliadis ^a,b,c,d   Salanti, Georgia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^c MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Coherence; Heterogeneity; Loops; Mixed treatment comparison; Multiple treatments meta analysis; Odds ratio

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ACQUISITION; ESTIMATION METHOD; HETEROGENEITY; META-ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TESTING METHOD;

ARTICLE; DATA EXTRACTION; INCONSISTENCY; MEASUREMENT; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS;

HUMANS; INTERVENTION STUDIES; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); ODDS RATIO; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84875595220     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dys222     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683-91.
2. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005;331:897-900.
3. Higgins JP, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 1996;15:2733-49
4. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23: 3105-24.
5. Coleman CI, Phung OJ, Cappelleri JC et al. Use of Mixed Treatment Comparisons in Systematic Reviews. Rockville, MD: US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012. Introduction available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK107325/ (4 February 2013, date last accessed).
6. Lu GB, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006;101: 447-59.
7. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;326:472.
8. Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ et al. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2011;343:d4909.
9. Song F, Chen YF, Loke Y, Eastwood A, Altman D. Inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates remains more prevalent than previous observed. 2011; http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/ inconsistency-between-direct-and-indirect-estimatesremains-more-prevalent (26 October 2011, date last accessed).
10. White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: Updates to mvmeta. Stata J 2011;11:255-70.
11. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88.
12. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat Med 2007;26:1964-81.
13. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002;21:1575-600.
14. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in metaanalysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 2000;19:1707-28.
15. Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Dias S, Ades AE. Selecting the best scale for measuring treatment effect in a network meta-analysis: a case study in childhood nocturnal enuresis. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:126-41.
16. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2008;17:279-301.
17. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62: 857-64.
18. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/. (28 October 2011, date last accessed).
19. Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barret JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconstency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:98-110.
20. White IR, Barret JK, Jackson D, Higgins JPT. Consistency and inconsistency in multiple treatments meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:111-25.
21. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-analysis. 1st edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
22. Raudenbush S.W. Analyzing effect sizes: random effects models. In Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (eds). The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. 2nd edn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.
23. Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat 2005;30:261-93.
24. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. Simple heterogeneity variance estimation for meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Series C-Applied Statistics 2005;54:367-84.
25. Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks J, Harbord R, Altman D, Sterne J. metan: fixed- and random-effects metaanalysis. Stata J 2008;8:3-28.
26. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Available from http://ims.cochrane.org [computer program] Version 5.1. Copenhagen; 2011.
27. Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F. Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2008;13:31-48.
28. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. Robust variance estimation for random effects meta-analysis. Comp Stat Data Anal 2006; 50:3681-701.
29. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999; 18:2693-708.
30. Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. Stat Med 1995;14:395-411.
31. Sidik K, Jonkman JN. A note on variance estimation in random effects meta-regression. J Biopharm Stat 2005;15: 823-38.
32. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. A likelihood approach to metaanalysis with random effects. Stat Med 1996;15:619-29.
33. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4: Inconsistency in Networks of Evidence Based on Randomised Controlled Trials. Technical Support Document series No. 4, available from http:// www.nicedsu.org.uk (April 2012, date last accessed). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU). Technical Support Document 2011.
34. Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Ades AE. Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:875-82.
35. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010;29:932-44.
36. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc 2002;64:583-639.
37. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006;101:447-59.
38. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24.
39. Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007;369:201-07.
40. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NK, Beyene J. Ratio of means for analyzing continuous outcomes in meta-analysis performed as well as mean difference methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:556-64.
41. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012;3: 80-97.
42. Lu G, Ades A. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics 2009;10: 792-805.
43. Mills EJ, Ghement I, O'Regan C, Thorlund K. Estimating the power of indirect comparisons: a simulation study. PLoS One 2011;6:e16237.
44. Madan J, Stevenson MD, Cooper KL, Ades AE, Whyte S, Akehurst R. Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence: is direct evidence always more reliable? Value Health 2011;14:953-60.
45. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009;338: b1147.