ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2021
A variance shrinkage method improves arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tipping point analysis in network meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- An investigation of the impact of using contrast- and arm-synthesis models for network meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Network meta-analysis made simple: A composite likelihood approach.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- BRIDGING RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AND SINGLE-ARM TRIALS USING COMMENSURATE PRIORS IN ARM-BASED NETWORK META-ANALYSIS.The annals of applied statistics · 2021Article
- Bayesian meta-analysis using SAS PROC BGLIMM.Research synthesis methods · 2021Article
- A review and comparison of arm-based versus contrast-based network meta-analysis for binary outcomes-Understanding their differences and limitations.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Network meta-analysis is a commonly used tool to combine direct and indirect evidence in systematic reviews of multiple treatments to improve estimation compared to traditional pairwise meta-analysis. Unlike the contrast-based network meta-analysis approach, which focuses on estimating relative effects such as odds ratios, the arm-based network meta-analysis approach can estimate absolute risks and other effects, which are arguably more informative in medicine and public health. However, the number of clinical studies involving each treatment is often small in a network meta-analysis, leading to unstable treatment-specific variance estimates in the arm-based network meta-analysis approach when using non- or weakly informative priors under an unequal variance assumption. Additional assumptions, such as equal (i.e. homogeneous) variances for all treatments, may be used to remedy this problem, but such assumptions may be inappropriately strong. This article introduces a variance shrinkage method for an arm-based network meta-analysis. Specifically, we assume different treatment variances share a common prior with unknown hyperparameters. This assumption is weaker than the homogeneous variance assumption and improves estimation by shrinking the variances in a data-dependent way. We illustrate the advantages of the variance shrinkage method by reanalyzing a network meta-analysis of organized inpatient care interventions for stroke. Finally, comprehensive simulations investigate the impact of different variance assumptions on statistical inference, and simulation results show that the variance shrinkage method provides better estimation for log odds ratios and absolute risks.
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.