Advertisement

Network Meta-analysis

  • Georgia SalantiEmail author
  • Deborah Caldwell
  • Anna Chaimani
  • Julian Higgins
Reference work entry
Part of the Health Services Research book series (HEALTHSR)

Abstract

The increasing number of alternative treatment options for the same condition created the need to undertake reviews that address complex policy-relevant questions and make inferences about many competing treatments. Such reviews collect data which, under conditions, can be statistically synthesized using network meta-analysis. This chapter presents the basic concepts of indirect and mixed comparison of treatments and presents the statistical models for network meta-analysis and their implementation both theoretically and in examples. The assumption underlying network meta-analysis is extensively discussed and extensions of the models to account for effect modifiers are presented.

Notes

Acknowledgments

GS and AC received funding from the European Research Council (ERC starting grant IMMA 260559). DC is supported by an UK MRC Population Health Scientist Fellowship (G0902118). JPTH is funded by Medical Research Council grant U105285807.

References

  1. Baker SG, Kramer BS. The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: if A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbui C, Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, et al. Making the best use of available evidence: the case of new generation antidepressants: a response to: are all antidepressants equal? Evid Based Ment Health. 2009;12:101–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith EL, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331:897–900.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Ades AE. Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;6(8):875–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76654.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:746–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, et al. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med. 2009;28(14):1861–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper NJ, Peters J, Lai MC, et al. How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation? Value Health. 2011;14:371–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, et al. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29:932–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Magazin A, et al. Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:583–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, et al. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One. 2010;5:e11054.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards SJ, Clarke MJ, Wordsworth S, et al. Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63:841–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eli Lilly and Company. Gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: Single technology appraisal submission to the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence. 2006. Available from http://www.nice.org.uk
  15. Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;369:201–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274:1800–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, et al. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:185–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 5.0.1 ed. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008; John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, England.Google Scholar
  20. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004;23:1663–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices-part 2. Value Health. 2011;14:429–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes S. First “comparison” of prasugrel and ticagrelor. 2010 Sep16. Available from http://www.theheart.org/article/1122713.do. Accessed 27 Apr 2011.
  23. Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise. Stat Med. 2011;30:2481–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jansen JP, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:798–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones A, Takeda A, Tan SC, Cooper K, Loveman E, Clegg A, Murray N. Gemcitabine for metastatic breast cancer: evidence review group report. 2006. Available from www.nice.org.uk
  26. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, Abrams KR, et al. How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Stat Med. 2005;24:2401–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24. PMID: 15449338”PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101:447–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lu G, Ades AE. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics. 2009;10(4):792–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McAlister FA, Laupacis A, Wells GA, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinical trial results B. Guidelines for determining whether a drug is exerting (more than) a class effect. JAMA. 1999;282:1371–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mills EJ, Ghement I, O’Regan C, et al. Estimating the power of indirect comparisons: a simulation study. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16237.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NICE. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 2nd ed. Evidence Synthesis National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.Google Scholar
  33. O’Regan C, Ghement I, Eyawo O, et al. Incorporating multiple interventions in meta-analysis: an evaluation of the mixed treatment comparison with the adjusted indirect comparison. Trials. 2009;10:86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. PBAC. Report of the indirect comparisons working group to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee: assessing indirect comparisons. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; 2008. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/B11E8EF19B358E39CA25754B000A9C07/$File/ICWG%20Report%20FINAL2.pdf
  35. Piccini JP, Kong DF. Mixed treatment comparisons for atrial fibrillation: evidence network or bewildering entanglement? Europace. 2011;13:295–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riley RD. Multivariate meta-analysis: the effect of ignoring within-study correlation. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2009;172:789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:857–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salanti G, Dias S, Welton NJ, et al. Evaluating novel agent effects in multiple-treatments meta-regression. Stat Med. 2010;29:2369–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Soares HP, Kumar A, Daniels S, et al. Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments? JAMA. 2005;293:970–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Song F, Altman D, Glenny AM, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;326:472.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;338:b1147.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, et al. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2011;343:d4909.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Bradley PC, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 2002;64:583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles PJ. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
  45. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10:277–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thijs V, Lemmens R, Fieuws S. Network meta-analysis: simultaneous meta-analysis of common antiplatelet regimens after transient ischaemic attack or stroke. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1086–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Uhtman OA, Abdulmalik J. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapeutic agents for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Cur Med Res Opin. 2010;26(1):53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Viechtbauer W. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2007;26:37–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Warn DE, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med. 2002;21:1601–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, et al. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.Google Scholar
  51. White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata J. 2011;11(2):255–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgia Salanti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Deborah Caldwell
    • 2
  • Anna Chaimani
    • 1
  • Julian Higgins
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Hygiene and EpidemiologyUniversity of Ioannina School of MedicineIoanninaGreece
  2. 2.School of Social and Community MedicineUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  3. 3.MRC Biostatistics UnitCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations