Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers

BMC Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Jansen, Jeroen P ^a,b   Naci, Huseyin ^c  

^a Mapi Group   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Comparative effectiveness; Confounding; Effect modification; Indirect comparison; Meta analysis; Mixed treatment comparison; Network meta analysis; Randomized controlled trial; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARD; THERAPY EFFECT; VALIDITY;

EFFECT MODIFIER, EPIDEMIOLOGIC; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84879818084     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-159     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Inthout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. Obtaining evidence by a single well-powered trial or several modestly powered trials. Stat Methods Med Res In press.
2. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005, 331:897-900. 10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897, 1255806, 16223826.
3. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics 2008, 26:753-767. 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00006, 18767896.
4. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J ClinEpidemiol 1997, 50:683-691.
5. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002, 21:2313-2324. 10.1002/sim.1201, 12210616.
6. 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, 14:953-960. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.042, 21914518.
7. Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J ClinEpidemiol 2008, 61:455-463.
8. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2008, 17:279-301.
9. Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Puhan MA, Guyatt GH. How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 2012, 308:1246-1253. 10.1001/2012.jama.11228, 23011714.
10. Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, Singh S, Dickersin K. Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med 2011, 9:79. 10.1186/1741-7015-9-79, 3159133, 21707969.
11. Naci H, Fleurence R. Using indirect evidence to determine the comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs: do benefits outweigh risks?. Health Outcomes Res Med 2011, 2:e241-e249.
12. Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, Ioannidis JP, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2012, 157:429-438.
13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002, 21:1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186, 12111919.
14. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research 2000, London, UK: Wiley.
15. Thompson SG. Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 1994, 309:1351-1355. 10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351, 2541868, 7866085.
16. Jansen JP, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. J ClinEpidemiol 2012, 65:798-807.
17. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny A-M, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009, 19:338.
18. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004, 23:3105-3124. 10.1002/sim.1875, 15449338.
19. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006, 101:447-459.
20. Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012, 3:98-110.
21. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1. Value Health 2011, 14:417-428. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002, 21669366.
22. Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?. Stat Med 2002, 21:1559-1573. 10.1002/sim.1187, 12111920.
23. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med 2009, 28:1861-1881. 10.1002/sim.3594, 19399825.
24. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J ClinEpidemiol 2009, 62:857-864.
25. Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods 2012, 3:177-190.
26. Saramago P, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Manca A. Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data. Stat Med 2012, 31:3516-3536. 10.1002/sim.5442, 22764016.