ArticlePloS one2016
Assumptions of Mixed Treatment Comparisons in Health Technology Assessments - Challenges and Possible Steps for Practical Application.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regeneration of periodontal intrabony defects using platelet-rich fibrin (PRF): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Odontology · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of periodontal indices among non-smokers, tobacco, and e-cigarette smokers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments Compared to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Progression-Free Survival with D-Rd and VRd Based on MAIA and SWOG S0777 Individual Patient-Level Data.Advances in therapy · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Reporting Standard Guidelines of Network Meta-Analyses in Physical Therapy: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
- Article
- A simulation study to compare different estimation approaches for network meta-analysis and corresponding methods to evaluate the consistency assumption.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata.Epidemiology and health · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The validity of mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs), also called network meta-analysis, relies on whether it is reasonable to accept the underlying assumptions on similarity, homogeneity, and consistency. The aim of this paper is to propose a practicable approach to addressing the underlying assumptions of MTCs. Using data from clinical studies of antidepressants included in a health technology assessment (HTA), we present a stepwise approach to dealing with challenges related to checking the above assumptions and to judging the robustness of the results of an MTC. At each step, studies that were dissimilar or contributed to substantial heterogeneity or inconsistency were excluded from the primary analysis. In a comparison of the MTC estimates from the consistent network with the MTC estimates from the homogeneous network including inconsistencies, few were affected by notable changes; that is, a change in effect size (factor 2), direction of effect or statistical significance. Considering the small proportion of studies excluded from the network due to inconsistency, as well as the number of notable changes, the MTC results were deemed sufficiently robust. In the absence of standard methods, our approach to checking assumptions in MTCs may inform other researchers in need of practical options, particularly in HTA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.