Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jun 27:9:79.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-79.

Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed

Collaborators, Affiliations

Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed

Tianjing Li et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Network meta-analysis, in the context of a systematic review, is a meta-analysis in which multiple treatments (that is, three or more) are being compared using both direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across trials based on a common comparator. To ensure validity of findings from network meta-analyses, the systematic review must be designed rigorously and conducted carefully. Aspects of designing and conducting a systematic review for network meta-analysis include defining the review question, specifying eligibility criteria, searching for and selecting studies, assessing risk of bias and quality of evidence, conducting a network meta-analysis, interpreting and reporting findings. This commentary summarizes the methodologic challenges and research opportunities for network meta-analysis relevant to each aspect of the systematic review process based on discussions at a network meta-analysis methodology meeting we hosted in May 2010 at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Since this commentary reflects the discussion at that meeting, it is not intended to provide an overview of the field.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of a network meta-analysis that combines direct evidence obtained within RCTs (A vs. B, B vs. C and A vs. C), and indirect evidence obtained across RCTs through a common comparator (A vs. B and B vs. C).

References

    1. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R. et al.Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(26):1–134. - PubMed
    1. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897–900. doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24. doi: 10.1002/sim.1875. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Higgins JP, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1996;15(24):2733–49. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961230)15:24<2733::AID-SIM562>3.0.CO;2-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24. doi: 10.1002/sim.1201. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources