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
. 2022:2345:245-261.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_15.

Modeling Multicomponent Interventions in Network Meta-Analysis

Affiliations

Modeling Multicomponent Interventions in Network Meta-Analysis

Areti Angeliki Veroniki et al. Methods Mol Biol. 2022.

Abstract

There is a rapid increase in trials assessing healthcare interventions consisting of a combination of drugs (polytherapies) or multiple components. In the latter type of interventions (also known as complex interventions), the aspect of complexity is of paramount importance. For example, nonpharmacological interventions, such as psychological interventions or self-management interventions, usually share common components that relate to the nature of intervention, who delivers it, or where and how. In a network of trials, there is often the need to identify the most effective (or safest) component and/or combination of components. Four key meta-analytical approaches have been presented in the literature to handle complex interventions. These include (a) the single-effect model, (b) the full interaction model, (c) the additive main effects model, and (d) the two-way interaction model. In this chapter, we present and discuss the advantages and limitations of these approaches. We illustrate these methods using a network that assesses the relative effects of self-management interventions on waist size in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Keywords: Additive effects; Combination therapies; Complex interventions; Component network meta-analysis; Multiple treatment meta-analysis; Self-management interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Adamopoulos E et al (2009) Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease. Am J Epidemiol 169:1158–1165 - DOI
    1. Petticrew M (2011) When are complex interventions 'complex'? When are simple interventions 'simple'? Eur J Pub Health 21:397–398 - DOI
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S et al (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337:a1655 - DOI
    1. James A, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P et al (2018) Node-making process in network meta-analysis of nonpharmacological treatment are poorly reported. J Clin Epidemiol 97:95–102 - DOI
    1. Mavridis D, Giannatsi M, Cipriani A et al (2015) A primer on network meta-analysis with emphasis on mental health. Evid Based Ment Health 18:40–46 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources