ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics2024
Non-parametric Bayesian approach to multiple treatment comparisons in network meta-analysis with application to comparisons of anti-depressants.
Article in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis models relaxing the random-effects normality assumption: methodological systematic review and simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- RaCE: A rank-clustering estimation method for network meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
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
Network meta-analysis is a powerful tool to synthesize evidence from independent studies and compare multiple treatments simultaneously. A critical task of performing a network meta-analysis is to offer ranks of all available treatment options for a specific disease outcome. Frequently, the estimated treatment rankings are accompanied by a large amount of uncertainty, suffer from multiplicity issues, and rarely permit possible ties of treatments with similar performance. These issues make interpreting rankings problematic as they are often treated as absolute metrics. To address these shortcomings, we formulate a ranking strategy that adapts to scenarios with high-order uncertainty by producing more conservative results. This improves the interpretability while simultaneously accounting for multiple comparisons. To admit ties between treatment effects in cases where differences between treatment effects are negligible, we also develop a Bayesian non-parametric approach for network meta-analysis. The approach capitalizes on the induced clustering mechanism of Bayesian non-parametric methods, producing a positive probability that two treatment effects are equal. We demonstrate the utility of the procedure through numerical experiments and a network meta-analysis designed to study antidepressant treatments.
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.