Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37767752›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2023

A new approach to evaluating loop inconsistency in network meta-analysis.

Rebecca M Turner, Tim Band, Tim P Morris, David J Fisher, Julian P T Higgins, James R Carpenter, Ian R White

Open access · hybridAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca M TurnerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7194-5464
Tim BandAdvanced Research Computing, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Tim P MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5850-3610
David J FisherMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.
Julian P T HigginsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
James R CarpenterMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3890-6206
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-7661
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBThe London College · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/06
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In network meta-analysis, studies evaluating multiple treatment comparisons are modeled simultaneously, and estimation is informed by a combination of direct and indirect evidence. Network meta-analysis relies on an assumption of consistency, meaning that direct and indirect evidence should agree for each treatment comparison. Here we propose new local and global tests for inconsistency and demonstrate their application to three example networks. Because inconsistency is a property of a loop of treatments in the network meta-analysis, we locate the local test in a loop. We define a model with one inconsistency parameter that can be interpreted as loop inconsistency. The model builds on the existing ideas of node-splitting and side-splitting in network meta-analysis. To provide a global test for inconsistency, we extend the model across multiple independent loops with one degree of freedom per loop. We develop a new algorithm for identifying independent loops within a network meta-analysis. Our proposed models handle treatments symmetrically, locate inconsistency in loops rather than in nodes or treatment comparisons, and are invariant to choice of reference treatment, making the results less dependent on model parameterization. For testing global inconsistency in network meta-analysis, our global model uses fewer degrees of freedom than the existing design-by-treatment interaction approach and has the potential to increase power. To illustrate our methods, we fit the models to three network meta-analyses varying in size and complexity. Local and global tests for inconsistency are performed and we demonstrate that the global model is invariant to choice of independent loops.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsResearch DesignHumansglobal testinconsistencyloop inconsistencynetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID37767752
PMCPMC7615349
OpenAlexW4387114833

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.