Questionable assumptions hampered interpretation of a network meta-analysis of primary care depression treatments

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 71, Issue , 2016, Pages 86-96

  Linde, Klaus ^a   Rücker, Gerta ^b   Schneider, Antonius ^a   Kriston, Levente ^c  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Depression; Heterogeneity; Network meta analysis; Pharmacotherapy; Primary care; Psychological treatment

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; PLACEBO; REBOXETINE; SEROTONIN ANTAGONIST; TRICYCLIC ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; VENLAFAXINE;

ARTICLE; COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY; DEPRESSION; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHARMACOTHERAPY; PSYCHOSOCIAL CARE; PSYCHOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SELF HELP; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TELECONSULTATION; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84975782921     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.010     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. [1] Barth, J., Munder, T., Gerger, H., Nüesch, E., Trelle, S., Znoj, H., et al. Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 10, 2013, e1001454.
2. [2] Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T.A., Salanti, G., Geddes, J.R., Higgins, J.P., Churchill, R., et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 373 (2009), 746–758.
3. [3] Gartlehner, G., Hansen, R.A., Morgan, L.C., Thaler, K., Lux, L., Van Noord, M., et al. Comparative benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder: an updated meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 155 (2011), 772–785.
4. [4] Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., van Schaik, A., Andersson, G., Psychological treatment of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract 59 (2009), e51–e60.
5. [5] Salanti, G., Higgins, J.P., Ades, A.E., Ioannidis, J.P., Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 17 (2008), 279–301.
6. [6] Lee, A.W., Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 138–143.
7. [7] Nikolakopoulou, A., Chaimani, A., Veroniki, A.A., Vasiliadis, H.S., Schmid, C.H., Salanti, G., Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e86754.
8. [8] Mills, E.J., Ioannidis, J.P., Thorlund, K., Schünemann, H.J., Puhan, M.A., Guyatt, G.H., How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 308 (2012), 1246–1253.
9. [9] 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 3 (2012), 80–97.
10. [10] Dias, S., Sutton, A.J., Ades, A.E., Welton, N.J., Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 33 (2013), 607–617.
11. [11] Linde, K., Schumann, I., Meissner, K., Jamil, S., Kriston, L., Rücker, G., et al. Treatment of depressive disorders in primary care–protocol of a multiple treatment systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Fam Pract, 12, 2011, 127.
12. [12] Linde, K., Kriston, L., Rücker, G., Jamil, S., Schumann, I., Meissner, K., et al. Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and network-meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 13 (2015), 69–79.
13. [13] Linde, K., Sigterman, K., Kriston, L., Rücker, G., Jamil, S., Meissner, K., et al. Effectiveness of psychological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 13 (2015), 56–68.
14. [14] Linde, K., Rücker, G., Sigterman, K., Jamil, S., Meissner, K., Schneider, A., et al. Comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care. BMC Fam Pract, 16, 2015, 103.
15. [15] Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed November 17, 2015.
16. [16] Rücker, G., Network meta-analysis, electrical networks and graph theory. Res Synth Methods 3 (2012), 312–324.
17. [17] Higgins, J.P., Thompson, S.G., Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21 (2002), 1539–1558.
18. [18] Dias, S., Sutton, A.J., Welton, N.J., Ades, A.E., Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity–subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment. Med Decis Making 33 (2013), 618–640.
19. [19] Turner, R.M., Davey, J., Clarke, M.J., Thompson, S.G., Higgins, J.P., Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol 41 (2012), 818–827.
20. [20] Krahn, U., Binder, H., König, J., A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 35.
21. [21] Rücker, G., Schwarzer, G., Krahn, U., König, J., netmeta: Network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. R package version 0.7-0. 2015 Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=netmeta Accessed November 17, 2015.
22. [22] Hegerl U, Mergl R. Remarks to “Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis” by Klaus Linde et al. and “Treatment of Depression in Primary Care” by Frank deGruy. Secondary Remarks to “Efficacy and Acceptability of Pharmacological Treatments for Depressive Disorders in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis'' by Klaus Linde, et al. and “Treatment of Depression in Primary Care” by Frank deGruy. 2015. Available at http://www.annfammed.org/content/13/1/69.short/reply#annalsfm_el_28862. Accessed November 17, 2015.
23. [23] Mills, E.J., Kanters, S., Thorlund, K., Chaimani, A., Veroniki, A.A., Ioannidis, J.P., The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey. BMJ, 347, 2013, f5195.
24. [24] Kim, D.D., Tang, J.Y., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Network geometry shows evidence sequestration for medical vs. surgical practices: treatments for basal cell carcinoma. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 391–400.
25. [25] Kriston, L., von Wolff, A., Westphal, A., Hölzel, L.P., Härter, M., Efficacy and acceptability of acute treatments for persistent depressive disorder: a network meta-analysis. Depress Anxiety 31 (2014), 621–630.
26. [26] Haidich, A.B., Pilalas, D., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D.G., Ioannidis, J.P., Most meta-analyses of drug interventions have narrow scopes and many focus on specific agents. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 371–378.
27. [27] Corbett, M.S., Rice, S.J., Madurasinghe, V., Slack, R., Fayter, D.A., Harden, M., et al. Acupuncture and other physical treatments for the relief of pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 21 (2013), 1290–1298.
28. [28] Mayo-Wilson, E., Dias, S., Mavranezouli, I., Kew, K., Clark, D.M., Ades, A.E., et al. Psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 1 (2014), 368–376.
29. [29] Nuesch, E., Hauser, W., Bernardy, K., Barth, J., Jüni, P., Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in fibromyalgia syndrome: network meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 72 (2013), 955–962.
30. [30] Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., van Oppen, P., Andersson, G., Are psychological and pharmacologic interventions equally effective in the treatment of adult depressive disorders? A meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Clin Psychiatry 69 (2008), 1675–1685.
31. [31] Imel, Z.E., Malterer, M.B., McKay, K.M., Wampold, B.E., A meta-analysis of psychotherapy and medication in unipolar depression and dysthymia. J Affect Disord 110 (2008), 197–206.
32. [32] Salanti, G., Marinho, V., Higgins, J.P.T., A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 857–864.
33. [33] Higgins, J.P.T., Thompson, S.G., Spiegelhalter, D.J., A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc 172 (2009), 137–159.
34. [34] Xiong, T., Parekh-Bhurke, S., Loke, Y.K., Abdelhamid, A., Sutton, A.J., Eastwood, A.J., et al. Overall similarity and consistency assessment scores are not sufficiently accurate for predicting discrepancy between direct and indirect comparison estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 184–191.
35. [35] Dias, S., Welton, N.J., Sutton, A.J., Ades, A.E., Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: Introduction. Med Decis Making 33 (2013), 597–606.
36. [36] Dias, S., Welton, N.J., Sutton, A.J., Caldwell, D.M., Lu, G., Ades, A.E., Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 33 (2013), 641–656.
37. [37] Puhan, M.A., Schunemann, H.J., Murad, M.H., Li, T., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Singh, J.A., et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ, 349, 2014, g5630.
38. [38] Kriston, L., Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 22 (2013), 1–15.
39. [39] Kriston, L., Meister, R., Incorporating uncertainty regarding applicability of evidence from meta-analyses into clinical decision making. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 325–334.
40. [40] Ioannidis, J.P., Indirect comparisons: the mesh and mess of clinical trials. Lancet 368 (2006), 1470–1472.