Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28503228›Full record

ArticlePharmacy practice

Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons.

Fernanda S Tonin, Inajara Rotta, Antonio M Mendes, Roberto Pontarolo

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 161 papers, 71 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
161citing papers in PubMed, 71 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

161 citing papers in PubMed, 71 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

101 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.

Fernanda S ToninMSc. (Pharm). Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Programme, Federal University of Paraná. Curitiba (Brazil). stumpf.tonin@ufpr.br.ORCID 0000-0003-4262-8608
Inajara RottaPhD. Pharmacy Service, Hospital de Clínicas, Federal University of Paraná. Curitiba (Brazil). inarotta@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9099-7216
Antonio M MendesMSc. (Pharm). Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Programme, Federal University of Paraná. Curitiba (Brazil). mmendesantonio@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5752-349X
Roberto PontaroloPhD. Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Paraná. Curitiba (Brazil). pontarolo@ufpr.br.ORCID 0000-0002-7049-4363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and pairwise meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, at the intersection of clinical medicine, epidemiology and statistics, are positioned at the top of evidence-based practice hierarchy. These are important tools to base drugs approval, clinical protocols and guidelines formulation and for decision-making. However, this traditional technique only partially yield information that clinicians, patients and policy-makers need to make informed decisions, since it usually compares only two interventions at the time. In the market, regardless the clinical condition under evaluation, usually many interventions are available and few of them have been studied in head-to-head studies. This scenario precludes conclusions to be drawn from comparisons of all interventions profile (e.g. efficacy and safety). The recent development and introduction of a new technique - usually referred as network meta-analysis, indirect meta-analysis, multiple or mixed treatment comparisons - has allowed the estimation of metrics for all possible comparisons in the same model, simultaneously gathering direct and indirect evidence. Over the last years this statistical tool has matured as technique with models available for all types of raw data, producing different pooled effect measures, using both Frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, with different software packages. However, the conduction, report and interpretation of network meta-analysis still poses multiple challenges that should be carefully considered, especially because this technique inherits all assumptions from pairwise meta-analysis but with increased complexity. Thus, we aim to provide a basic explanation of network meta-analysis conduction, highlighting its risks and benefits for evidence-based practice, including information on statistical methods evolution, assumptions and steps for performing the analysis.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesEvidence-Based PracticeNetwork Meta-AnalysisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28503228
PMCPMC5386629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.