Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32742550›Full record

ArticleStatistics and its interface2020

On evidence cycles in network meta-analysis.

Lifeng Lin, Haitao Chu, James S Hodges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics and its interface, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Lifeng LinDepartment of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Haitao ChuDivision of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
James S HodgesDivision of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Timothy C. Hallstrom · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
Statistical Methods and Software for Multivariate Meta-analysisR21LM012197 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI CHU, HAITAO · 2015 to 2016
$385k
Joint Meta-Regression Methods Accounting for Postrandomization VariablesR21LM012744 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI CHU, HAITAO · 2017 to 2018
$376k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598NLM NIH HHS R21 LM012197NLM NIH HHS R21 LM012744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As an extension of pairwise meta-analysis of two treatments, network meta-analysis has recently attracted many researchers in evidence-based medicine because it simultaneously synthesizes both direct and indirect evidence from multiple treatments and thus facilitates better decision making. The Bayesian hierarchical model is a popular method to implement network meta-analysis, and it is generally considered more powerful than conventional pairwise meta-analysis, leading to more precise effect estimates with narrower credible intervals. However, the improvement of effect estimates produced by Bayesian network meta-analysis has never been studied theoretically. This article shows that such improvement depends highly on evidence cycles in the treatment network. When all treatment comparisons are assumed to have different heterogeneity variances, a network meta-analysis produces posterior distributions identical to separate pairwise meta-analyses for treatment comparisons that are not contained in any evidence cycles. However, this equivalence does not hold under the commonly-used assumption of a common heterogeneity variance for all comparisons. Simulations and a case study are used to illustrate the equivalence of the Bayesian network and pairwise meta-analyses in certain networks.

Indexed as

Bayesian hierarchical modelevidence cycleindirect evidencenetwork meta-analysisrelative effecttreatment network

Identifiers

PMID32742550
PMCPMC7394478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.