2015
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated generation of node‐splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta‐analysis

Abstract: Network meta‐analysis enables the simultaneous synthesis of a network of clinical trials comparing any number of treatments. Potential inconsistencies between estimates of relative treatment effects are an important concern, and several methods to detect inconsistency have been proposed. This paper is concerned with the node‐splitting approach, which is particularly attractive because of its straightforward interpretation, contrasting estimates from both direct and indirect evidence. However, node‐splitting an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
319
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 440 publications
(320 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
319
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Incoherence between the direct and indirect effect estimates was assessed using the node-splitting method. 21 When the assumptions are challenged, the results of the network meta-analysis might be limited. These limitations were operationalised using the GRADE approach for network meta-analysis, which, among other aspects such as risk of bias of the studies, takes into consideration these assumptions to rate the quality of the evidence, downgrading its rating if there is heterogeneity, intransitivity or incoherence.…”
Section: Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Incoherence between the direct and indirect effect estimates was assessed using the node-splitting method. 21 When the assumptions are challenged, the results of the network meta-analysis might be limited. These limitations were operationalised using the GRADE approach for network meta-analysis, which, among other aspects such as risk of bias of the studies, takes into consideration these assumptions to rate the quality of the evidence, downgrading its rating if there is heterogeneity, intransitivity or incoherence.…”
Section: Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Summary OR and its 95% credible interval (95% CrI) for the event of tumor recurrence or progression were produced for comparison. Evidence inconsistency for each pair of comparison was assessed by the node-splitting method [7]. Evidence was significantly inconsistent if the P-value of the node-splitting method < 0.05.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The R package netmeta (Rücker et al 2015) provides models in a frequentist framework described in Rücker (2012). The R package gemtc (van Valkenhoef and Kuiper 2015) and the Stata (StataCorp 2015) command network perform contrast-based analyses. Neither package provides estimates for population-averaged treatment-specific parameters.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%