Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35948411›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2023

Using individual participant data to improve network meta-analysis projects.

Richard D Riley, Sofia Dias, Sarah Donegan, Jayne F Tierney, Lesley A Stewart, Orestis Efthimiou, David M Phillippo

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Richard D RileySchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK r.riley@keele.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8699-0735
Sofia DiasCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Sarah DoneganDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jayne F TierneyMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.
Lesley A StewartCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Orestis EfthimiouInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPMU), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
David M PhillippoPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of York · GBKeele University · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/06Medical Research Council MR/P015298/1Medical Research Council MR/R025223/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A network meta-analysis combines the evidence from existing randomised trials about the comparative efficacy of multiple treatments. It allows direct and indirect evidence about each comparison to be included in the same analysis, and provides a coherent framework to compare and rank treatments. A traditional network meta-analysis uses aggregate data (eg, treatment effect estimates and standard errors) obtained from publications or trial investigators. An alternative approach is to obtain, check, harmonise and meta-analyse the individual participant data (IPD) from each trial. In this article, we describe potential advantages of IPD for network meta-analysis projects, emphasising five key benefits: (1) improving the quality and scope of information available for inclusion in the meta-analysis, (2) examining and plotting distributions of covariates across trials (eg, for potential effect modifiers), (3) standardising and improving the analysis of each trial, (4) adjusting for prognostic factors to allow a network meta-analysis of conditional treatment effects and (5) including treatment-covariate interactions (effect modifiers) to allow relative treatment effects to vary by participant-level covariate values (eg, age, baseline depression score). A running theme of all these benefits is that they help examine and reduce heterogeneity (differences in the true treatment effect between trials) and inconsistency (differences in the true treatment effect between direct and indirect evidence) in the network. As a consequence, an IPD network meta-analysis has the potential for more precise, reliable and informative results for clinical practice and even allows treatment comparisons to be made for individual patients and targeted populations conditional on their particular characteristics.

Indexed as

Network Meta-Analysis as TopicHumansevidence-based practicepolicy

Identifiers

PMID35948411
PMCPMC10313959
OpenAlexW4291020415

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.