Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27479782›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2016

Model-Based Network Meta-Analysis: A Framework for Evidence Synthesis of Clinical Trial Data.

D Mawdsley, M Bennetts, S Dias, M Boucher, N J Welton

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 53 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 53 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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 53 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

32 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

5 authors.

D MawdsleySchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
M BennettsPharmacometrics Group, Pfizer Ltd, Sandwich, Kent, United Kingdom.
S DiasSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
M BoucherPharmacometrics Group, Pfizer Ltd, Sandwich, Kent, United Kingdom.
N J WeltonSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M005232/1Medical Research Council MR/M005615/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) is increasingly used in drug development to inform decision-making and future trial designs, through the use of complex dose and/or time course models. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly being used by reimbursement agencies to estimate a set of coherent relative treatment effects for multiple treatments that respect the randomization within the trials. However, NMAs typically either consider different doses completely independently or lump them together, with few examples of models for dose. We propose a framework, model-based network meta-analysis (MBNMA), that combines both approaches, that respects randomization, and allows estimation and prediction for multiple agents and a range of doses, using plausible physiological dose-response models. We illustrate our approach with an example comparing the efficacies of triptans for migraine relief. This uses a binary endpoint, although we note that the model can be easily modified for other outcome types.

Indexed as

Statistics as TopicHumansMigraine DisordersNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTryptaminesTryptamines

Identifiers

PMID27479782
PMCPMC4999602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.