A threshold analysis assessed the credibility of conclusions from network meta-analysis

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 80, Issue , 2016, Pages 68-76

  Caldwell, Deborah M ^a   Ades, A E ^a   Dias, Sofia ^a   Watkins, Sarah ^a   Li, Tianjing ^b   Taske, Nichole ^c   Naidoo, Bhash ^c   Welton, Nicky J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

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

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Comparative effectiveness; GRADE; Health technology assessment; Mixed treatment comparison; Quality assessment; Reliability

Indexed keywords

ALENDRONIC ACID; CALCIUM; DENOSUMAB; IBANDRONIC ACID; PARATHYROID HORMONE[1-34]; RISEDRONIC ACID; VITAMIN D; ZOLEDRONIC ACID;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; EVALUATION STUDY; GRADING OF RECOMMENDATIONS ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION METHOD; HUMAN; LOW CARBOHYDRATE DIET; LOW FAT DIET; NETWORK META ANALYSIS; OSTEOPOROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THRESHOLD ANALYSIS; WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM; WEIGHT REDUCTION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; HUMANS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; OSTEOPOROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; WEIGHT REDUCTION PROGRAMS;

EID: 84996946536     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. [1] 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.
2. [2] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London.
3. [3] Lu, G., Ades, A., Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat In Med 23 (2004), 3105–3124.
4. [4] Salanti, G., Higgins, J.P.T., Ades, A.E., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Evaluation of networks of randomised trials. Stat Methods Med Res 17 (2008), 279–301.
5. [5] Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Schünemann, H.J., Tugwell, P., Knottnerus, A., GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 380–382.
6. [6] Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H.J., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 401–406.
7. [7] Guyatt, G., Oxman, A.D., Sultan, S., Brozek, J., Glasziou, P., Alonso-Coello, P., et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 151–157.
8. [8] Puhan, M.A., Schünemann, 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.
9. [9] Salanti, G., Del Giovane, C., Chaimani, A., Caldwell, D.M., Higgins, J.P., Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e99682.
10. [10] Lu, G., Welton, N.J., Higgins, J.P.T., White, I.R., Ades, A.E., Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: a two-stage approach. Res Synth Methods 2 (2011), 43–60.
11. [11] Lu, G., Welton, N.J., Higgins, J.P.T., White, I.R., Ades, A.E., Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: a two-stage approach [correction]. Res Synth Methods, 3, 2011, 255.
12. [12] König, J., Krahn, U., Binder, H., Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta-analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 32 (2013), 5414–5429.
13. [13] Krahn, U., Binder, H., Konig, J., A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 35.
14. [14] Johnston, B.C., Kanters, S., Bandayre, K., Wu, P., Naji, F., Siemieniuk, R.A., et al. Comparison of weight loss among named diet programs in overweight and obese adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA 312 (2014), 923–933.
15. [15] Murad, M.H., Drake, M.T., Mullan, R.J., Mauck, K.F., Stuart, L.M., Lane, M.A., et al. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97 (2012), 1871–1880.
16. [16] Caldwell, D.M., Welton, N.J., Ades, A.E., Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 875–882.
17. [17] Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P., van der Linde, A., Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc B 64 (2002), 583–616.
18. [18] Greenland, S., Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data. J R Stat Soc A 168 (2005), 267–306.
19. [19] Welton, N.J., Ades, A.E., Carlin, J.B., Altman, D.G., Sterne, J.A.C., Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors. J R Stat Soc A 172:1 (2009), 119–136.
20. [20] Dias, S., Welton, N.J., Marinho, V.C.C., Salanti, G., Higgins, J.P.T., Ades, A.E., Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomised evidence by using Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc A 173:3 (2010), 613–629.
21. [21] Turner, R.M., Spiegelhalter, D.J., Smith, G.C.S., Thompson, S.G., Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc A 172 (2009), 21–47.
22. [22] Schulz, K.F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R.J., Altman, D.G., Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273 (1995), 408–412.
23. [23] Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L.L., Schulz, K., Juni, P., Altman, D., et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336 (2008), 601–605.
24. [24] Savovic, J., Jones, H.E., Altman, D.G., Harris, R.J., Juni, P., Pildal, J., et al. Influence of study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess 16 (2012), 1–82.
25. [25] Savovic, J., Jones, H.E., Altman, D.G., Harris, R.J., Juni, P., Pildal, J., et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 157 (2012), 429–438.
26. [26] 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.
27. [27] Sweeting, M.J., Sutton, A.J., Lambert, P.C., What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med 23 (2004), 1351–1375.
28. [28] Salanti, G., Dias, S., Welton, N.J., Ades, A.E., Golfinopoulos, V., Kyrgiou, M., et al. Evaluating novel agent effects in multiple treatments meta-regression. Stat In Med 29 (2010), 2369–2383.
29. [29] Dias, S., Welton, N.J., Ades, A.E., Study designs to detect sponsorship and other biases in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 587–588.
30. [30] Moreno, S.G., Sutton, A.J., Ades, A.E., Cooper, N.J., Abrams, K.R., Adjusting for publication biases across similar interventions performed well when compared with gold standard data. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 1230–1241.
31. [31] Moreno, S.G., Sutton, A.J., Turner, E.H., Abrams, K.R., Cooper, N.J., Palmer, T.M., et al. Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications. BMJ, 339, 2009, b2981.
32. [32] Naci, H., Dias, S., Ades, A.E., Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analytic exploration of LDL cholesterol reduction in the randomised trials of statins. BMJ, 349, 2014, g5741.
33. [33] Naci, H., Dias, S., Ades, A.E., No evidence of industry sponsorship bias in statin trials (letter). BMJ, 349, 2014, g6579.
34. [34] Naci, H., van Valkenhoef, G., Higgins, J.P.T., Fleurence, R., Ades, A.E., Combining network meta-analysis with multicriteria decision analysis to choose among multiple drugs. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 7 (2014), 787–792.
35. [35] Tervonen, T., Naci, H., van Valkenhoef, G., Ades, A.E., Angelis, A., Hillege, H.L., et al. Applying multiple criteria decision analysis to comparative benefit-risk assessment: choosing among statins in primary prevention. Med Decis Making 35 (2015), 859–871.
36. [36] Claxton, K., Posnett, J., An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 5 (1996), 513–524.
37. [37] DerSimonian, R., Laird, N., Meta-analysis of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7 (1986), 177–188.
38. [38] Dias, S., Sutton, A.J., Welton, N.J., Ades, A.E., NICE DSU Technical Support Document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment, in Technical Support Document. 2011, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London.
39. [39] Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2. Available at https://www.meta-analysis.com/. Accessed August 09, 2016.