ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Effect of methodological choices and inclusion criteria on network meta-analysis results in psoriasis.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen conducting network meta-analysis (NMA), researchers need to make several methodological and analytical decisions, which can influence the results of NMAs. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of different methodological choices on the conclusions from the analyses of a network of 20 active treatments in patients with psoriasis.
methodsWe re-analysed the available data of a living Cochrane NMA evaluating the systemic treatments in psoriasis under various analytical scenarios defined by the combination of pre-specified methodological choices. We performed NMAs on three outcomes: Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 90, PASI 100 and serious adverse events (SAEs). Variability of the effect estimates across NMAs was summarized using ratio of relative risks (RRR) and ratio of odds ratio (ROR). We estimated the level of agreement between the treatment hierarchies using the Average Overlap (AO).
resultsOverall, 560 NMAs were conducted. The median number of included interventions was 18 (IQR 17-19), for a median number of included studies of 68 (IQR 57-93). The median RRR was 1.06 (IQR 1.06-1.08) for PASI 90, 1.07 (IQR 1.06-1.10) for early PASI 90, 1.14 (IQR 1.06-1.15) for late PASI 90, 1.04 (IQR 1.01-1.05) for PASI 100, and 1.02 (IQR 1.02-1.06) for SAEs. The criteria with the greatest impact on the effect estimates were the inclusion or exclusion of studies with biological-naïve patients, inclusion or exclusion of phase II trials, and the inclusion or exclusion of studies evaluating conventional treatments. The analysis choice with the greatest impact was the use of the Mantel-Haenszel method instead of the inverse variance method. There was a high agreement of treatment hierarchies between analyses. For the top 6 ranking treatments, the median AO across all scenarios for PASI 90 was 0.84 (IQR 0.72-0.97). For early PASI 90, late PASI 90, PASI 100, and SAE, the median AO were 0.94 (IQR 0.91-0.97), 0.75 (IQR 0.65-0.97), 0.94 (IQR 0.91-0.97), and 0.59 (IQR 0.59- 0.90), respectively.
conclusionsWe found that different methodological choices could influence NMAs' results. However, even though moderate variation in effect estimates could be observed across the analyses, treatment hierarchies remained stable for the top-ranking drugs.
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.