The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 162, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 777-784

  Hutton, Bria ^a   Salanti, Georgi ^b   Caldwell, Deborah M ^d   Chaimani, Ann ^c   Schmid, Christopher H ^e   Cameron, Chri ^a   Ioannidis, John P A ^f   Straus, Sharo ^g   Thorlund, Kristia ^h   Jansen, Jeroen P ^h   Mulrow, Cynthi ⁱ   Catala Lopez, Ferra ^j   Gotzsche, Peter C ^k   Dickersin, Ka ^l   Boutron, Isabell ^m   Altman, Douglas G ^m   Moher, Davi ^a  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^d BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^g American College of Physicians ^*  (Canada)

^h AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS   (United States)

ⁱ Department of Medicines for Veterinary Use   (Spain)

^j Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

^k JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^l PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^m UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CONSENSUS; DELPHI STUDY; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; NOMENCLATURE; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARDS;

CHECKLIST; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84932084410     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/M14-2385     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-9.
3. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W65-94.
4. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8: e83138. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083138
5. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, Li Y, Liu Y, Zhou M, et al. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:770-5. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi .2007.10.008
6. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23:3105-24.
7. Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatmentsmeta-analyses.CMAJ.2009;181:488-93. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081086
8. Lee AW. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:138-43. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013 .07.014
9. Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PLoS One. 2014;9:e86754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone .0086754
10. Hutton B, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Schmid C, Thorlund K, et al. The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. PLoS One. 2014;9:e92508. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092508
11. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7: e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
12. Ades AE, Mavranezouli I, Dias S, Welton NJ, Whittington C, Kendall T. Network meta-analysis with competing risk outcomes. Value Health. 2010;13:976-83. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733 .2010.00784.x
13. Ades AE, Caldwell D, Reken S, Welton N, Sutton A, Dias S. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 7: Evidence Synthesis of Treatment Efficacy in Decision Making: A Reviewer's Checklist. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2012. Accessed at www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD7%20reviewer%20checklist.final.08.05.12 .pdf on 28 February 2015.
14. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331:897-900.
15. Del Giovane C, Vacchi L, Mavridis D, Filippini G, Salanti G. Network meta-analysis models to account for variability in treatment definitions: application to dose effects. Stat Med. 2013;32:25-39. doi:10.1002/sim.5512
16. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29: 932-44. doi:10.1002/sim.3767
17. Dias S, Welton N, Marinho V, Salanti G, Ades A. Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomised evidence using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2010;173:613-29.
18. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:607-17. doi:10.1177/0272989X12458724
19. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:641-56. doi:10.1177/0272989 X12455847
20. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity-subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:618-40. doi:10.1177/0272989X13485157
21. Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barrett J, Lu G, Ades A, White I. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:98-110.
22. Jackson D, Barrett JK, Rice S, White IR, Higgins JP. A design-bytreatment interaction model for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. Stat Med. 2014;33:3639-54. doi:10.1002/sim.6188
23. Jansen JP, Cope S. Meta-regression models to address heterogeneity and inconsistency in network meta-analysis of survival outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:152. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-152
24. Jansen J. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:177-90.
25. Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11:159. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-159
26. Jones B, Roger J, Lane PW, Lawton A, Fletcher C, Cappelleri JC, et al; PSI Health Technology Special Interest Group, Evidence Synthesis sub-Team. Statistical approaches for conducting network meta-analysis in drug development. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:523-31. doi:10.1002/pst.533
27. Lindsley K, Cameron N, Wormald R, Li T, Dickersin K. Evaluating the transitivity assumption when constructing network meta-analysis: lumping or splitting? Cochrane Library Supplement. Presented at the 21st Cochrane Colloquium, Quebec, Canada, 23 September 2013.
28. Lu G, Ades A. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101:447-59.
29. Lu G, Ades A. Modeling between-Trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics. 2009;10:792-805. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxp032
30. Mills EJ, Bansback N, Ghement I, Thorlund K, Kelly S, Puhan MA, et al. Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity. Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:193-202. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S16526
31. Thorlund K, Mills E. Stability of additive treatment effects in multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis: a simulation study. Clin Epidemiol. 2012;4:75-85. doi:10.2147/CLEP .S29470
32. Mills EJ, Kanters S, Thorlund K, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Ioannidis JP. The effects of excluding treatments from network metaanalyses: survey. BMJ. 2013;347:f5195. doi:10 .1136/bmj.f5195
33. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:544-53.
34. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multipletreatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:857-64. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.001
35. Salanti G, Dias S, Welton NJ, Ades AE, Golfinopoulos V, Kyrgiou M, et al. Evaluating novel agent effects in multiple-Treatments metaregression. Stat Med. 2010;29:2369-83. doi:10 .1002/sim.4001
36. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-Treatment metaanalysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163-71. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
37. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:753-67.
38. Thorlund K, Mills EJ. Sample size and power considerations in network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2012;1:41. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-41
39. Thorlund K, Thabane L, Mills EJ. Modelling heterogeneity variances in multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis-are informative priors the better solution? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:2. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-2
40. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42: 332-45. doi:10.1093/ije/dys222
41. Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K, Schünemann HJ, Puhan MA, Guyatt GH. How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012;308:1246-53.
42. Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:130-7. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008
43. Woods BS, Hawkins N, Scott DA. Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: a tutorial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:54. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-54
44. 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: 1861-81. doi:10.1002/sim.3594
45. Donegan S, Williamson P, D'Alessandro U, Tudur Smith C. Assessing the key assumptions of network meta-analysis: a review of methods. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4:291-323.
46. Achana FA, Cooper NJ, Dias S, Lu G, Rice SJ, Kendrick D, et al. Extending methods for investigating the relationship between treatment effect and baseline risk from pairwise meta-analysis to network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32:752-71. doi:10 .1002/sim.5539
47. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network metaanalysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1.ValueHealth.2011;14:417-28. doi:10.1016/j .jval.2011.04.002
48. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, et al. Conducting indirect-Treatment-comparison and networkmeta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14:429-37. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011 .01.011
49. Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17:157-73. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004
50. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:161-76.
51. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JP. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99682. doi:10.1371/journal .pone.0099682
52. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336: 1472-4. doi:10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47
53. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010;40: 35-53. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x
54. Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, Seely D, Sampson M, Altman DG, et al. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:718-42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013
55. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al; CONSORT Group. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e20. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020
56. Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O'Neill J, Waters E, et al; PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001333. doi:10 .1371/journal.pmed.1001333
57. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78.
58. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11:MR000030. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000030 .pub2
59. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:252-60. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065779
60. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki-ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2008. Accessed at www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index .html on 31 August 2014.
61. Stegeman BH, de Bastos M, Rosendaal FR, van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Stijnen T, et al. Different combined oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thrombosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f5298. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5298
62. Peruzzi M, De Luca L, Thomsen H, Romagnoli E, D'Ascenzo F, Mancone M, et al. Network meta-analysis on randomized trials focusing on the preventive effect of statins on contrast-induced nephropathy. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:213239.
63. Loymans RJ, Gemperli A, Cohen J, Rubinstein SM, Sterk PJ, Reddel HK, et al. Comparative effectiveness of long term drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations: network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g3009. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3009
64. Liao WC, Chien KL, Lin YL, Wu MS, Lin JT, Wang HP, et al. Adjuvant treatments for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14: 1095-103. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70388-7
65. 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.
66. Donegan S, Williamson P, D'Alessandro U, Tudur Smith C. Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: indi-vidual patient-level covariates versus aggregate trial-level covariates. Stat Med. 2012;31:3840-57. doi:10.1002/sim .5470
67. Mauri D, Polyzos NP, Salanti G, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Multipletreatments meta-analysis of chemotherapy and targeted therapies in advanced breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1780-91. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn414
68. Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Sindi A, Heels-Ansdell D, Thabane L, Fox-Robichaud A, et al; Fluids in Sepsis and Septic Shock Group. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network metaanalysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:347-55. doi: 10.7326/M14-0178
69. Cooper NJ, Peters J, Lai MC, Juni P, Wandel S, Palmer S, et al. How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation? Value Health. 2011;14:371-80. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.001
70. Tonelli AR, Zein J, Ioannidis JP. Geometry of the randomized evidence for treatments of pulmonary hypertension. Cardiovasc Ther. 2013;31:e138-46. doi:10.1111/1755-5922 .12050
71. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:544-53.
72. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:279-301.
73. Kappagoda S, Ioannidis JP. Neglected tropical diseases: survey and geometry of randomised evidence. BMJ. 2012;345:e6512. doi:10.1136/bmj.e6512
74. Kim DD, Tang JY, Ioannidis JP. Network geometry shows evidence sequestration for medical vs. surgical practices: treatments for basal cell carcinoma. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:391-400. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.015
75. Rizos EC, Salanti G, Kontoyiannis DP, Ioannidis JP. Homophily and co-occurrence patterns shape randomized trials agendas: illustration in antifungal agents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:830-42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.017
76. Lathyris DN, Patsopoulos NA, Salanti G, Ioannidis JP. Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010;40:172-82. doi:10.1111/j .1365-2362.2009.02240.x
77. Ioannidis JP, Karassa FB, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ. Biologic agents in rheumatology: unmet issues after 200 trials and 200 billion sales. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013;9:665-73. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2013.134
78. Ioannidis JP, Karassa FB. The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence. BMJ. 2010;341:c4875. doi:10 .1136/bmj.c4875
79. Kim D, Tang J, Ioannidis JP. Comparative evidence is lacking on conservative versus invasive treatments for basal cell carcinoma. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:391-400. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10 .015
80. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
81. Caldwell D, Welton N, Dias S, Ades A. 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.
82. Filippini G, Del Giovane C, Vacchi L, D'Amico R, Di Pietrantonj C, Beecher D, et al. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD008933. doi:10.1002/14651858 .CD008933.pub2
83. Windecker S, Stortecky S, Stefanini GG, da Costa BR, daCosta BR, Rutjes AW, et al. Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g3859. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3859
84. White I. Multivariate random effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2009; 9:40-56.
85. Rucker G, Shwarzer G. Package 'netmeta': network meta-analysis with R. The R Project. 2013. Accessed at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/netmeta/netmeta.pdf on 28 February 2015.
86. Spiegelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, Van Der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2002;64:583-639.
87. Spiegelhalter D, Abrams K, Myles J. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-care Evaluation. Chichester, United Kingdom: J Wiley; 2004.
88. Leucht S, Cipriani A, Spineli L, Mavridis D, Orey D, Richter F, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-Treatments meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013; 382:951-62. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13) 60733-3
89. 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.
90. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e76654. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076654
91. Trinquart L, Ioannidis JP, Chatellier G, Ravaud P. A test for reporting bias in trial networks: simulation and case studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:112. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-112
92. Trinquart L, Chatellier G, Ravaud P. Adjustment for reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:150. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-150
93. Mavridis D, Welton NJ, Sutton A, Salanti G. A selection model for accounting for publication bias in a full network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2014;33:5399-412. doi:10.1002/sim .6321
94. Furukawa TA, Noma H, Caldwell DM, Honyashiki M, Shinohara K, Imai H, et al. Waiting list may be a nocebo condition in psychotherapy trials: a contribution from network meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014;130:181-92. doi:10.1111/acps .12275
95. Castellucci LA, Cameron C, Le Gal G, Rodger MA, Coyle D, Wells PS, et al. Efficacy and safety outcomes of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs in the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013; 347:f5133. doi:10.1136/bmj.f5133
96. Caldwell DM, Gibb DM, Ades AE. Validity of indirect comparisons in meta-analysis [Letter]. Lancet. 2007;369:270.
97. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:818-27. doi:10.1093/ije/dys041
98. Lam SK, Owen A. Combined resynchronisation and implantable defibrillator therapy in left ventricular dysfunction: Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;335:925.
99. Tan SH, Cooper NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Sutton AJ. Novel presentational approaches were developed for reporting network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:672-80. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.006
100. Gelman A, Carlin J, Stern H, Dunson D, Vehtari A, Rubin D. Bayesian Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Pr; 2013.
101. Lu G, Welton N, Higgins JP, White I, Ades A. Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: a two-stage approach. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:43-60.
102. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi 2009.08.025
103. 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.
104. Krahn U, Binder H, König J. A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13:35. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-35
105. Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, et al; GRADE Working Group. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5630. doi:10.1136/bmj.g5630
106. Stettler C, Allemann S, Wandel S, Kastrati A, Morice MC, Schö-mig A, et al. Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1331. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1331
107. Cameron C, Coyle D, Richter T, Kelly S, Gauthier K, Steiner S, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing antithrombotic agents for the prevention of stroke and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004301. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004301
108. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other metaanalyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;333:782.
109. Stamatakis E, Weiler R, Ioannidis JP. Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review Eur J Clin Invest. 2013;43:469-75. doi:10 .1111/eci.12074
110. Medical Research Council. The BUGS project. 2013 Accessed at www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/software/bugs/ on 28 February 2015.
111. JAGS. 26 April 2013. Accessed at http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge .net on 28 February 2015.
112. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE decision support unit. 2013. Accessed at www.nicedsu.org.uk/Evidence-Synthesis-TSD-series(2391675).htm on 28 February 2015.
113. University of Bristol. Multi-parameter evidence synthesis research. 2013. Accessed at www.bris.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/projects/mpes on 28 February 2015.
114. Multiple-Treatments meta-analysis: a framework for evaluating and ranking multiple healthcare technologies. 2013. Accessed at www.mtm.uoi.gr on 28 February 2015.
115. van Valkenhoef G, Kuiper J. Package 'gemtc': GeMTC network meta-analysis. 2013. Accessed at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gemtc/gemtc.pdf on 28 February 2015.
116. Medical Research Council. The BUGS project: calling Winbugs 1.4 remotely. 2013. Accessed at www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/software/bugs/calling-winbugs-1-4-from-other-programs/ on 16 April 2015.
117. van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades A, Welton N. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3: 285-99.
118. van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, de Brock B, Hillege H. Algorithmic parameterization of mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Comput. 2012;22:1099-11.
119. drugis.org. ADDIS: Aggregate Data Drug Information System. 2013. Accessed at http://drugis.org/addis on 1 February 2015.
120. Rucker G. Network meta-analysis, electrical networks and graph theory. Research Synth Meth. 2012;3:112-24.
121. White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata J. 2011;11:255-70.
122. Medical Research Council. STATA software. 2013. Accessed at www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/software/stata-software/ on 16 April 2015.
123. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH indirect treatment comparisons calculator. 2013. Accessed at https://www.cadth.ca/resources/itc-user-guide on 16 April 2015.
124. Wells G, Sultan S, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health 2009