Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38769000›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2024

Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder.

Constant Vinatier, Clement Palpacuer, Alexandre Scanff, Florian Naudet

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. What is the vibration of effects?BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Constant VinatierUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Centre d'investigation clinique de Rennes (CIC1414), F-35000, Rennes, France constant.vinatier1@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6899-1838
Clement PalpacuerGroupe Hospitalier de la Region de Mulhouse et Sud Alsace, Mulhouse, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5440-1860
Alexandre ScanffUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Centre d'investigation clinique de Rennes (CIC1414), F-35000, Rennes, France.
Florian NaudetUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Centre d'investigation clinique de Rennes (CIC1414), F-35000, Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3760-3801

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIt is frequent to find overlapping network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic with differences in terms of both treatments included and effect estimates. We aimed to evaluate the impact on effect estimates of selecting different treatment combinations (ie, network geometries) for inclusion in NMAs.

designMultiverse analysis, covering all possible NMAs on different combinations of treatments.

settingData from a previously published NMA exploring the comparative effectiveness of 22 treatments (21 antidepressants and a placebo) for the treatment of acute major depressive disorder.

participantsCipriani

main outcome measuresFor each possible treatment selection, we performed an NMA to estimate comparative effectiveness on treatment response and treatment discontinuation for the treatments included (231 between-treatment comparisons). The distribution of effect estimates of between-treatment comparisons across NMAs was computed, and the direction, magnitude and statistical significance of the 1st and 99th percentiles were compared.

results4 116 254 different NMAs concerned treatment response. Among possible network geometries, 172/231 (74%) pairwise comparisons exhibited opposite effects between the 1st and 99th percentiles, 57/231 (25%) comparisons exhibited statistically significant results in opposite directions, 118 of 231 (51%) comparisons derived results that were both significant and non-significant at 5% risk and 56/231 (24%) treatment pairs obtained consistent results with only significant differences (or only non-significant differences) at 5% risk. Comparisons based on indirect evidence only were associated with greater variability in effect estimates. Comparisons with small absolute values observed in the complete NMA more frequently obtained statistically significant results in opposite directions. Similar results were observed for treatment discontinuation.

conclusionIn this multiverse analysis, we observed that the selection of treatments to be included in an NMA could have considerable consequences on treatment effect estimations.

trial registrationhttps://osf.io/mb5dy.

Indexed as

Antidepressive AgentsMajor Depressive DisorderHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAntidepressive AgentsEpidemiologyTHERAPEUTICS

Identifiers

PMID38769000
PMCPMC11503165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.