ArticlePloS one2016
The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses - An Empirical Study.
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 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of antimicrobial regimens for pneumonia caused by drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a network meta-analysis including cefiderocol and inhaled therapies.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Different Exercises for Reducing Pain Intensity in Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Sports medicine - open · 2024Pooled it
- A network meta-analysis: evaluating the efficacy and safety of concurrent proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel therapy in post-PCI patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative Safety of Intravenous Sedatives for Bronchoscopy: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Yonsei medical journal · 2026Article
- From Dogs to Robots: Pet-Assisted Interventions for Depression in Older Adults-A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Assessing the comparative effects of interventions in COPD: a tutorial on network meta-analysis for clinicians.Respiratory research · 2024Review
- Motivational Barriers and Facilitators for Older Adults' Engagement in Exercise during Depressive Episodes: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Sound of Memory: Investigating Music Therapy's Cognitive Benefits in Patients with Dementia-A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Multifaceted Music Therapy for Depression in Dementia: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024Article
- Article
- Crossroads of methodological choices in research synthesis: insights from two network meta-analyses on preventing relapse in schizophrenia.BMJ mental health · 2023Article
- Network Meta-Analysis Techniques for Synthesizing Prevention Science Evidence.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Review
- Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Multiple Outcomes in Dental Research.The journal of evidence-based dental practice · 2020Article
- Article
- Empirical evaluation of SUCRA-based treatment ranks in network meta-analysis: quantifying robustness using Cohen's kappa.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Bayesian hierarchical methods for meta-analysis combining randomized-controlled and single-arm studies.Statistical methods in medical research · 2019Article
- Quantifying and presenting overall evidence in network meta-analysis.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Network meta-analysis (NMA) expands the scope of a conventional pairwise meta-analysis to simultaneously compare multiple treatments, which has an inherent appeal for clinicians, patients, and policy decision makers. Two recent reports have shown that the impact of excluding a treatment on NMAs can be substantial. However, no one has assessed the impact of excluding a trial from NMAs, which is important because many NMAs selectively include trials in the analysis. This article empirically examines the impact of trial exclusion using both the arm-based (AB) and contrast-based (CB) approaches, by reanalyzing 20 published NMAs involving 725 randomized controlled trials and 449,325 patients. For the population-averaged absolute risk estimates using the AB approach, the average fold changes across all networks ranged from 1.004 (with standard deviation 0.004) to 1.072 (with standard deviation 0.184); while the maximal fold changes ranged from 1.032 to 2.349. In 12 out of 20 NMAs, a 1.20-fold or larger change is observed in at least one of the population-averaged absolute risk estimates. In addition, while excluding a trial can substantially change the estimated relative effects (e.g., log odds ratios), there is no systematic difference in terms of changes between the two approaches. Changes in treatment rankings are observed in 7 networks and changes in inconsistency are observed in 3 networks. We do not observe correlations between changes in treatment effects, treatment rankings and inconsistency. Finally, we recommend rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, logical study selection process, and reasonable network geometry to ensure robustness and generalizability of the results of NMAs.
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.