ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021
A method for assessing robustness of the results of a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unidentifiable consistency assumption.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Sharing information across patient subgroups to draw conclusions from sparse treatment networks.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn a star-shaped network, pairwise comparisons link treatments with a reference treatment (often placebo or standard care), but not with each other. Thus, comparisons between non-reference treatments rely on indirect evidence, and are based on the unidentifiable consistency assumption, limiting the reliability of the results. We suggest a method of performing a sensitivity analysis through data imputation to assess the robustness of results with an unknown degree of inconsistency.
methodsThe method involves imputation of data for randomized controlled trials comparing non-reference treatments, to produce a complete network. The imputed data simulate a situation that would allow mixed treatment comparison, with a statistically acceptable extent of inconsistency. By comparing the agreement between the results obtained from the original star-shaped network meta-analysis and the results after incorporating the imputed data, the robustness of the results of the original star-shaped network meta-analysis can be quantified and assessed. To illustrate this method, we applied it to two real datasets and some simulated datasets.
resultsApplying the method to the star-shaped network formed by discarding all comparisons between non-reference treatments from a real complete network, 33% of the results from the analysis incorporating imputed data under acceptable inconsistency indicated that the treatment ranking would be different from the ranking obtained from the star-shaped network. Through a simulation study, we demonstrated the sensitivity of the results after data imputation for a star-shaped network with different levels of within- and between-study variability. An extended usability of the method was also demonstrated by another example where some head-to-head comparisons were incorporated.
conclusionsOur method will serve as a practical technique to assess the reliability of results from a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unverifiable consistency assumption.
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.