Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers

BMC Medicine

Huseyin Naci²  Jeroen P Jansen¹ 

[1] Tufts University School of Medicine, 145 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02111, USA;LSE Health & Social Care, London School of Economics & Political Science, Cowdray House, 20 Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK

关键词: Systematic review;    Randomized controlled trial;    Network meta-analysis;    Mixed treatment comparison;    Meta-analysis;    Indirect comparison;    Effect modification;    Confounding;    Comparative effectiveness;    Bias;   

Others  :  856963
DOI  :  10.1186/1741-7015-11-159

 received in 2013-02-22, accepted in 2013-05-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

In the last decade, network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been introduced as an extension of pairwise meta-analysis. The advantage of network meta-analysis over standard pairwise meta-analysis is that it facilitates indirect comparisons of multiple interventions that have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. Although assumptions underlying pairwise meta-analyses are well understood, those concerning network meta-analyses are perceived to be more complex and prone to misinterpretation.

Discussion

In this paper, we aim to provide a basic explanation when network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis. We focus on the primary role of effect modifiers, which are study and patient characteristics associated with treatment effects. Because network meta-analysis includes different trials comparing different interventions, the distribution of effect modifiers cannot only vary across studies for a particular comparison (as with standard pairwise meta-analysis, causing heterogeneity), but also between comparisons (causing inconsistency). If there is an imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers between different types of direct comparisons, the related indirect comparisons will be biased. If it can be assumed that this is not the case, network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis.

Summary

The validity of network meta-analysis is based on the underlying assumption that there is no imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers across the different types of direct treatment comparisons, regardless of the structure of the evidence network.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Jansen and Naci; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Inthout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF: Obtaining evidence by a single well-powered trial or several modestly powered trials. Stat Methods Med ResIn press
• [2]Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT: Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005, 331:897-900.
• [3]Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K: Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics 2008, 26:753-767.
• [4]Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD: The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J ClinEpidemiol 1997, 50:683-691.
• [5]Lumley T: Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002, 21:2313-2324.
• [6]Madan J, Stevenson MD, Cooper KL, Ades AE, Whyte S, Akehurst R: Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence: is direct evidence always more reliable? Value Health 2011, 14:953-960.
• [7]Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R: Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J ClinEpidemiol 2008, 61:455-463.
• [8]Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP: Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2008, 17:279-301.
• [9]Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Puhan MA, Guyatt GH: How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 2012, 308:1246-1253.
• [10]Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, Singh S, Dickersin K: Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med 2011, 9:79. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Naci H, Fleurence R: Using indirect evidence to determine the comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs: do benefits outweigh risks? Health Outcomes Res Med 2011, 2:e241-e249.
• [12]Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, Ioannidis JP, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA: Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2012, 157:429-438.
• [13]Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002, 21:1539-1558.
• [14]Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F: Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. London, UK: Wiley; 2000.
• [15]Thompson SG: Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 1994, 309:1351-1355.
• [16]Jansen JP, Schmid CH, Salanti G: Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. J ClinEpidemiol 2012, 65:798-807.
• [17]Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny A-M, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG: Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009, 19:338.
• [18]Lu G, Ades AE: Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004, 23:3105-3124.
• [19]Lu G, Ades AE: Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006, 101:447-459.
• [20]Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR: Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012, 3:98-110.
• [21]Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC: Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1. Value Health 2011, 14:417-428.
• [22]Thompson SG, Higgins JPT: How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002, 21:1559-1573.
• [23]Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, Ades AE, Welton NJ: Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med 2009, 28:1861-1881.
• [24]Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP: A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J ClinEpidemiol 2009, 62:857-864.
• [25]Jansen JP: Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods 2012, 3:177-190.
• [26]Saramago P, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Manca A: Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data. Stat Med 2012, 31:3516-3536.