Revista Mexicana de Oftalmología

Register      Login

VOLUME 92 , ISSUE 3E ( May-June, 2018 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Network meta-analysis

Christian Fau, Solange Nabzo, Veronica Nasabun

Keywords : Network meta-analysis, Indirect comparisons, Mixed treatment comparisons, Multiple treatment comparison, Meta-analysis

Citation Information : Fau C, Nabzo S, Nasabun V. Network meta-analysis. 2018; 92 (3E):131-137.

DOI: 10.24875/RMOE.M18000016

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 14-05-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología. Published by Permanyer México SA de CV.


Abstract

Network meta-analysis (also called mixed treatment comparisons) is a powerful statistical technique that combines different studies to perform the analysis of multiple treatments or to estimate an indirect effect in the absence of a direct comparison. These studies are carried out through the development of a network analysis, allowing the estimation the relative effects of all the treatments or interventions included in the network simultaneously and using techniques that estimate the direct and indirect evidence analysis. Inductions are comparisons of different treatments using data from different studies and using a common comparator, either because these studies are not available or are of poor quality, or if one wishes to compare numerous alternatives. In network meta-analysis, the mixed treatment comparison is based on a closed-loop network, which provides much more information and has less bias than open-loop models. Currently in closed-loops or cycles, several statistical methods are used for their analysis, but in each study, a unique statistical approach is used. The most frequent to date are the Bayesian methods, therefore, it is more important the analysis of the research process and network than obtaining a single weighted final measure. The objective of this narrative review is to describe the fundamental concepts of network meta-analysis, their usefulness and methodological considerations, the fundamentals of the analysis, the network conformation and its main limitations.


PDF Share
  1. 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 in Health. 2014;17(2):157-73.
  2. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313-24.
  3. Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, Singh S, Dickersin K. Network meta-analysis- highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med. 2011;9:1-5.
  4. Van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zhao J, De Brock B, Hillege HL, Postmus D. Multicriteria benefit-risk assessment using network meta- analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(4):394-403.
  5. Haynes RB. Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the “5S” evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. Evid Based Med. 2006;11(6):162-4.
  6. Van der Valk R, Webers CA, Lumley T, Hendrikse F, Prins MH, Schouten JS. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect comparisons between glaucoma drugs to rank effectiveness in lowering intraocular pressure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(12):1279-83.
  7. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777-84.
  8. Chung H, Lumley T. Graphical exploration of network meta-analysis data: the use of multidimensional scaling. Clin Trials. 2008;5(4):301-7.
  9. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e76654.
  10. Zhang J, Xie J, Hou W, Tu X, Xu J, Song F, et al. Mapping the knowledge structure of research on patient adherence: knowledge domain visualization based co-word analysis and social network analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34497.
  11. Jones B, Roger J, Lane PW, Lawton A, Fletcher C, Cappelleri JC, et al. Statistical approaches for conducting network meta-analysis in drug development. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(6):523-31.
  12. 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;12:138.
  13. 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.
  14. Catalá-López F, Hutton B, Moher D. La propiedad transitiva en los ensayos clínicos controlados: si B es mejor que A y C es mejor que B, ¿C será mejor que A? Rev Esp Cardiol. 2014;67(8):597-602.
  15. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):332-45.
  16. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;338(7700):932-5.
  17. Neupane B, Richer D, Bonner AJ, Kibret T, Beyene J. Network Meta- Analysis Using R: A Review of Currently Available Automated Packages. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123364.
  18. Tobías A, Catalá-López F, Roqué M. Desarrollo de una hoja Excel para metaanálisis de comparaciones indirectas y mixtas. Rev Esp de Salud Pública. 2014;88(1):5-15.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.