Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25908686›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based mental health2015

A primer on network meta-analysis with emphasis on mental health.

Dimitris Mavridis, Myrsini Giannatsi, Andrea Cipriani, Georgia Salanti

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 31 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 31 pooled it
18.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 31 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 194 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Comparative safety of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dimitris MavridisDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece; Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece;
Myrsini GiannatsiDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece;
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Georgia SalantiDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece;
University of Ioannina · GRUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

European Research Council 260559
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA quantitative synthesis of evidence via standard pair-wise meta-analysis lies on the top of the hierarchy for evaluating the relative effectiveness or safety between two interventions. In most healthcare problems, however, there is a plethora of competing interventions. Network meta-analysis allows to rank competing interventions and evaluate their relative effectiveness even if they have not been compared in an individual trial. The aim of this paper is to explain and discuss the main features of this statistical technique.

methodsWe present the key assumptions underlying network meta-analysis and the graphical methods to visualise results and information in the network. We used one illustrative example that compared the relative effectiveness of 15 antimanic drugs and placebo in acute mania.

resultsA network plot allows to visualise how information flows in the network and reveals important information about network geometry. Discrepancies between direct and indirect evidence can be detected using inconsistency plots. Relative effectiveness or safety of competing interventions can be presented in a league table. A contribution plot reveals the contribution of each direct comparison to each network estimate. A comparison-adjusted funnel plot is an extension of simple funnel plot to network meta-analysis. A rank probability matrix can be estimated to present the probabilities of all interventions assuming each rank and can be represented using rankograms and cumulative probability plots.

conclusionsNetwork meta-analysis is very helpful in comparing the relative effectiveness and acceptability of competing treatments. Several issues, however, still need to be addressed when conducting a network meta-analysis for the results to be valid and correctly interpreted.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMental Health

Identifiers

PMID25908686
PMCPMC11234956
OpenAlexW2085805157

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.