Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21750628›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2011

Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity.

Edward J Mills, Nick Bansback, Isabella Ghement, Kristian Thorlund, Steven Kelly, Milo A Puhan, James Wright

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The Improvement of Walking Ability Following Stroke.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Edward J MillsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada;
Nick Bansback
Isabella Ghement
Kristian Thorlund
Steven Kelly
Milo A Puhan
James Wright

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of meta-analysis has become increasingly useful for clinical and policy decision making. A recent development in meta-analysis, multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis, provides inferences on the comparative effectiveness of interventions that may have never been directly evaluated in clinical trials. This new approach may be confusing for clinicians and methodologists and raises specific challenges relevant to certain areas of medicine. This article addresses the methodological concepts of MTC meta-analysis, including issues of heterogeneity, choice of model, and adequacy of sample sizes. We address domain-specific challenges relevant to disciplines of medicine, including baseline risks of patient populations. We conclude that MTC meta-analysis is a useful tool in the context of comparative effectiveness and requires further study, as its utility and transparency will likely predict its uptake by the research and clinical community.

Indexed as

meta-analysismixed treatment comparisonmultiple treatment comparisonnetwork

Identifiers

PMID21750628
PMCPMC3130904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.