Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: Empirical study

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 360, Issue , 2018, Pages

  Nikolakopoulou, Adriani ^a   Mavridis, DImitris ^b,c   Furukawa, Toshi A ^d   Cipriani, Andrea ^e   Tricco, Andrea C ^f,g   Straus, Sharon E ^f,h   Siontis, George C M ⁱ   Egger, Matthias ^a   Salanti, Georgia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^c INSERM   (France)

^d KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^e WARNEFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ENDOCRINOLOGY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NULL HYPOTHESIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHIATRY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RHEUMATOLOGY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS;

EID: 85042707390     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k585     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-Analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ 1997;315:1371-4. 10. 1136/bmj.315. 7119. 1371
2. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:820-6. 10. 7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008
3. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992;268:240-8. 10. 1001/jama. 1992. 03490020088036
4. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992;327:248-54. 10. 1056/NEJM199207233270406
5. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco A. When and how to update systematic reviews. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008 [cited 2014 Mar 21]. http://doi. wiley. com/10. 1002/14651858. MR000023. pub3
6. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:224-33. 10. 7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179
7. French SD, McDonald S, McKenzie JE, Green SE. Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:33. 10. 1186/1471-2288-5-33
8. Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione MA, et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2013;2:104. 10. 1186/2046-4053-2-104
9. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, et al, Panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 2016;354:i3507. 10. 1136/bmj.i3507
10. Takwoingi Y, Hopewell S, Tovey D, Sutton AJ. A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. BMJ 2013;347:f7191. 10. 1136/bmj.f7191
11. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001603. 10. 1371/journal. pmed. 1001603
12. Petropoulou M, Nikolakopoulou A, Veroniki A-A, et al. Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2015. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;82:20-28.
13. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ 2013;347:f3675.
14. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005;331:897-900.
15. Cipriani A, Higgins JPT, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013;159: 130-7. 10. 7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008
16. Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, Singh S, Dickersin K, Ad Hoc Network Meta-analysis Methods Meeting Working Group. Network metaanalysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med 2011;9:79. 10. 1186/1741-7015-9-79
17. Vandvik PO, Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt GH. Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews? BMC Med 2016 Dec [cited 2017 Apr 5];14(1). http://bmcmedicine. biomedcentral. com/articles/10. 1186/s12916-016-0596-4
18. Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Egger M, Salanti G. Continuously updated network meta-analysis and statistical monitoring for timely decision-making. Stat Methods Med Res 2016;962280216659896.
19. Kanters S, Ford N, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ, Bansback N. Use of network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines. Bull World Health Organ 2016;94:782-4. 10. 2471/BLT. 16. 174326
20. Créquit P, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P. Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and upto-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer. BMC Med 2016;14:8. 10. 1186/s12916-016-0555-0
21. Naci H, O'Connor AB. Assessing comparative effectiveness of new drugs before approval using prospective network meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:812-6. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2013. 04. 002
22. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A, Simmonds M. Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 2011;30:903-21. 10. 1002/sim. 4088
23. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010;29: 932-44. 10. 1002/sim. 3767
24. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:64-75. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2007. 03. 013
25. Imberger G, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011890. 10. 1136/bmjopen-2016-011890
26. Simmonds M, Salanti G, McKenzie J, Elliott J, Living Systematic Review Network. Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;91:38-46. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2017. 08. 008
27. 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. 10. 1093/ije/dys041
28. Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JPT. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:52-60. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2014. 08. 012
29. Leucht S, Cipriani A, Spineli L, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multipletreatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2013;382:951-62. 10. 1016/S0140-6736(13)60733-3
30. Beasley CMJr, Tollefson G, Tran P, Satterlee W, Sanger T, Hamilton S. Olanzapine versus placebo and haloperidol: acute phase results of the North American double-blind olanzapine trial. Neuropsychopharmacology 1996;14:111-23. 10. 1016/0893-133X(95)00069-P
31. Vaupel JW, Manton KG, Stallard E. The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography 1979;16:439-54. 10. 2307/2061224
32. Dong W, Goost H, Lin X-B, et al. Treatments for shoulder impingement syndrome: a PRISMA systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e510. 10. 1097/MD. 0000000000000510
33. Haas DM, Caldwell DM, Kirkpatrick P, McIntosh JJ, Welton NJ. Tocolytic therapy for preterm delivery: systematic review and network metaanalysis. BMJ 2012;345:e6226. 10. 1136/bmj.e6226
34. Shamliyan TA, Kane RL, Taylor FR. Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 [cited 2016 Dec 22]. (AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews). Available from: http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/books/NBK138287/
35. Yang B, Shi J, Chen X, Ma B, Sun H. Efficacy and safety of therapies for acute ischemic stroke in China: a network meta-analysis of 13289 patients from 145 randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014;9:e88440. 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0088440
36. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? Lancet 2016;387:1573-86. 10. 1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4
37. Storz-Pfennig P. Potentially unnecessary and wasteful clinical trial research detected in cumulative meta-epidemiological and trial sequential analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;82:61-70. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2016. 11. 003
38. Li T, Vedula SS, Scherer R, Dickersin K. What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:367-77. 10. 7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00009
39. Rouse B, Cipriani A, Shi Q, Coleman AL, Dickersin K, Li T. Network Meta-analysis for Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Case Study on First-Line Medical Therapies for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:674-82. 10. 7326/M15-2367
40. Leucht S, Chaimani A, Cipriani AS, Davis JM, Furukawa TA, Salanti G. Network meta-analyses should be the highest level of evidence in treatment guidelines. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2016;266:477-80. 10. 1007/s00406-016-0715-4
41. Eichler H-G, Thomson A, Eichler I, Schneeweiss S. Assessing the relative efficacy of new drugs: an emerging opportunity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2015;14:443-4. 10. 1038/nrd4664
42. Higgins JPT, Welton NJ. Network meta-analysis: a norm for comparative effectiveness?Lancet 2015;386:628-30. 10. 1016/S0140-6736(15)61478-7
43. Naci H, van Valkenhoef G, Higgins JPT, Fleurence R, Ades AE. Evidence-based prescribing: combining network meta-analysis with multicriteria decision analysis to choose among multiple drugs. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014;7:787-92. 10. 1161/CIRCOUTCOMES. 114. 000825
44. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JPT, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:332-45. 10. 1093/ije/dys222
45. Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, et al, Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2011;343:d4909.
46. Song F, Clark A, Bachmann MO, Maas J. Simulation evaluation of statistical properties of methods for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012 Dec [cited 2017 Apr 6];12(1). http://bmcmedresmethodol. biomedcentral. com/articles/10. 1186/1471-2288-12-138
47. Veroniki AA, Mavridis D, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Characteristics of a loop of evidence that affect detection and estimation of inconsistency: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 Dec [cited 2017 Apr 6];14(1). http://bmcmedresmethodol. biomedcentral. com/articles/10. 1186/1471-2288-14-106
48. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al, GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6. 10. 1136/bmj.39489. 470347. AD
49. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2010. 04. 026
50. Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, 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. 10. 1136/bmj.g5630
51. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JPT. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e99682. 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0099682
52. Brignardello-Petersen R, Bonner A, Alexander PE, et al, GRADE Working Group. Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network metaanalysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;93:36-44. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2017. 10. 005
53. Schünemann HJ. Interpreting GRADE's levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision? J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75(Supplement C):6-15. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2016. 03. 018
54. Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative metaanalysis. Control Clin Trials 1997;18:580-93, discussion 661-6. 10. 1016/S0197-2456(97)00051-2
55. Zarin W, Veroniki AA, Nincic V, et al. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review. BMC Med 2017;15:3. 10. 1186/s12916-016-0764-6
56. Badgett RG, Vindhyal M, Stirnaman JT, Gibson CM, Halaby R. A Living Systematic Review of Nebulized Hypertonic Saline for Acute Bronchiolitis in Infants. JAMA Pediatr 2015;169:788-9. 10. 1001/jamapediatrics. 2015. 0681
57. Rahal AK, Badgett RG, Hoffman RM. Screening Coverage Needed to Reduce Mortality from Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review. PLoS One 2016;11:e0153417. 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0153417
58. Créquit P, Trinquart L, Ravaud P. Live cumulative network metaanalysis: protocol for second-line treatments in advanced non-smallcell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011841. 10. 1136/bmjopen-2016-011841
59. Brooks-Renney C, Costello S, Kusel J, Timm B. The use of mixed treatment comparisons in NICE technology appraisals. 2011;
60. EUnetHTA. Methodological guideline for REA of pharmaceuticals: Direct and indirect comparison. [cited 2017 Apr 24]. www. eunethta. eu/outputs/methodological-guideline-rea-pharmaceuticals-directand-indirect-comparison
61. Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Macdonald H, Guyatt GH, Brandt L, Vandvik PO. Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations. BMJ 2016;354:i5191. 10. 1136/bmj.i5191
62. Mann H, Djulbegovic B. Comparator bias: why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties. J R Soc Med 2013;106:30-3. 10. 1177/0141076812474779
63. Clark T, Berger U, Mansmann U. Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review[review]. BMJ 2013;346:f1135. 10. 1136/bmj.f1135
64. Habre C, Tramèr MR, Pöpping DM, Elia N. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection. BMJ 2014;348:g5219. 10. 1136/bmj.g5219
65. Jones AP, Conroy E, Williamson PR, Clarke M, Gamble C. The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:50. 10. 1186/1471-2288-13-50
66. Goudie AC, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Donald A. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:983-91. 10. 1016/j. jclinepi. 2010. 01. 022