Using the contribution matrix to evaluate complex study limitations in a network meta-analysis: A case study of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy review

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Furukawa, Toshi A ^a   Miura, Tomofumi ^b   Chaimani, Anna ^c   Leucht, Stefan ^d   Cipriani, Andrea ^e   Noma, Hisashi ^f   Mitsuyasu, Hiroshi ^b   Kanba, Shegenobu ^b   Salanti, Georgia ^g  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^d TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f INSTITUTE OF STATISTICAL MATHEMATICS   (Japan)

^g UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Enrichment design; GRADE; Network meta analysis; Risk of bias; Study limitations

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BIPOLAR DISORDER; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MAINTENANCE CHEMOTHERAPY; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL BIAS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIPOLAR DISORDER; HUMANS; MAINTENANCE CHEMOTHERAPY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84963799463     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-2019-1     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(2):130-7.
2. Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, Kessels AG, Guyatt GH, Group GW. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5630.
3. 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(7):e99682.
4. Miura T, Noma H, Furukawa TA, Mitsuyasu H, Tanaka S, Stockton S, Salanti G, Motomura K, Shimano-Katsuki S, Leucht S, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(5):351-9.
5. Cipriani A, Barbui C, Rendell J, Geddes JR. Clinical and regulatory implications of active run-in phases in long-term studies for bipolar disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014;129:328-42.
6. Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3049-67.
7. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
8. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76654.
9. Krahn U, Binder H, Konig J. A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:35.
10. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Visualizing assumptions and results in network meta-analysis: the network graphs package. Stata J. 2015;15(4):905-50.
11. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, Gluud C, Martin RM, Wood AJ, Sterne JA. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601-5.
12. Chaimani A, Vasiliadis HS, Pandis N, Schmid CH, Welton NJ, Salanti G. Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):1120-31.