Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30488475›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2019

Incorporating external evidence on between-trial heterogeneity in network meta-analysis.

Rebecca M Turner, Clara P Domínguez-Islas, Dan Jackson, Kirsty M Rhodes, Ian R White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Network Meta-Analysis Techniques for Synthesizing Prevention Science Evidence.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How to Conduct a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rebecca M TurnerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7194-5464
Clara P Domínguez-IslasMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0653-3441
Dan JacksonMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4963-8123
Kirsty M RhodesMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8568-4979
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-7661

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a network meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity variances are often very imprecisely estimated because data are sparse, so standard errors of treatment differences can be highly unstable. External evidence can provide informative prior distributions for heterogeneity and, hence, improve inferences. We explore approaches for specifying informative priors for multiple heterogeneity variances in a network meta-analysis. First, we assume equal heterogeneity variances across all pairwise intervention comparisons (approach 1); incorporating an informative prior for the common variance is then straightforward. Models allowing unequal heterogeneity variances are more realistic; however, care must be taken to ensure implied variance-covariance matrices remain valid. We consider three strategies for specifying informative priors for multiple unequal heterogeneity variances. Initially, we choose different informative priors according to intervention comparison type and assume heterogeneity to be proportional across comparison types and equal within comparison type (approach 2). Next, we allow all heterogeneity variances in the network to differ, while specifying a common informative prior for each. We explore two different approaches to this: placing priors on variances and correlations separately (approach 3) or using an informative inverse Wishart distribution (approach 4). Our methods are exemplified through application to two network metaanalyses. Appropriate informative priors are obtained from previously published evidence-based distributions for heterogeneity. Relevant prior information on between-study heterogeneity can be incorporated into network meta-analyses, without needing to assume equal heterogeneity across treatment comparisons. The approaches proposed will be beneficial in sparse data sets and provide more appropriate intervals for treatment differences than those based on imprecise heterogeneity estimates.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisOutcome Assessment, Health CareAnalysis of VarianceBayes TheoremNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignBayesian methodsheterogeneitymultiple-treatments meta-analysisnetwork meta-analysisprior distributions

Identifiers

PMID30488475
PMCPMC6492109

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.