Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29377598›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2018

Graphs of study contributions and covariate distributions for network meta-regression.

Sarah Donegan, Sofia Dias, Catrin Tudur-Smith, Valeria Marinho, Nicky J Welton

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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.

Sarah DoneganDepartment of Biostatistics, Waterhouse Building, University of Liverpool, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1709-2290
Sofia DiasSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2172-0221
Catrin Tudur-SmithDepartment of Biostatistics, Waterhouse Building, University of Liverpool, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Valeria MarinhoBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, 4 Newark Street, London, E1 2AT, UK.
Nicky J WeltonSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800800Medical Research Council MR/K021435/1Medical Research Council MR/M005232/1Medical Research Council MR/M005615/1Medical Research Council MR/P015298/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeta-regression results must be interpreted taking into account the range of covariate values of the contributing studies. Results based on interpolation or extrapolation may be unreliable. In network meta-regression (NMR) models, which include covariates in network meta-analyses, results are estimated using direct and indirect evidence; therefore, it may be unclear which studies and covariate values contribute to which result. We propose graphs to help understand which trials and covariate values contribute to each NMR result and to highlight extrapolation or interpolation.

methodsWe introduce methods to calculate the contribution that each trial and covariate value makes to each result and compare them with existing methods. We show how to construct graphs including a network covariate distribution diagram, covariate-contribution plot, heat plot, contribution-NMR plot, and heat-NMR plot. We demonstrate the methods using a dataset with treatments for malaria using the covariate average age and a dataset of topical fluoride interventions for preventing dental caries using the covariate randomisation year.

resultsFor the malaria dataset, no contributing trials had an average age between 7-25 years and therefore results were interpolated within this range. For the fluoride dataset, there are no contributing trials randomised between 1954-1959 for most comparisons therefore, within this range, results would be extrapolated.

conclusionsEven in a fully connected network, an NMR result may be estimated from trials with a narrower covariate range than the range of the whole dataset. Calculating contributions and graphically displaying them aids interpretation of NMR result by highlighting extrapolated or interpolated results.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAlgorithmsChildChild, PreschoolDental CariesFluoridesHot TemperatureHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalariaPhosphatesRegression AnalysisStatistics as TopicYoung AdultFluoridesfluorophosphatePhosphatescontributionextrapolationtreatment by covariate interactionsweightmeta-regressionnetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID29377598
PMCPMC6001528

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.