Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta‐analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons

Network meta-analysis techniques allow for pooling evidence from different studies with only partially overlapping designs for getting a broader basis for decision support. The results are network-based effect estimates that take indirect evidence into account for all pairs of treatments. The results critically depend on homogeneity and consistency assumptions, which are sometimes difficult to investigate. To support such evaluation, we propose a display of the flow of evidence and introduce new measures that characterize the structure of a mixed treatment comparison. Specifically, a linear fixed effects model for network meta-analysis is considered, where the network estimates for two treatments are linear combinations of direct effect estimates comparing these or other treatments. The linear coefficients can be seen as the generalization of weights known from classical meta-analysis. We summarize properties of these coefficients and display them as a weighted directed acyclic graph, representing the flow of evidence. Furthermore, measures are introduced that quantify the direct evidence proportion, the mean path length, and the minimal parallelism of mixed treatment comparisons. The graphical display and the measures are illustrated for two published network meta-analyses. In these applications, the proposed methods are seen to render transparent the process of data pooling in mixed treatment comparisons. They can be expected to be more generally useful for guiding and facilitating the validity assessment in network meta-analysis.

[1]  J. Geddes,et al.  Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis , 2009, The Lancet.

[2]  S. Hurlbert The Nonconcept of Species Diversity: A Critique and Alternative Parameters. , 1971, Ecology.

[3]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Meta-analysis of Multitreatment Studies , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Evaluation of networks of randomized trials , 2008, Statistical methods in medical research.

[5]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis: A two‐stage approach , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[6]  S Dias,et al.  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  A. C. Aitken IV.—On Least Squares and Linear Combination of Observations , 1936 .

[8]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Dan Jackson,et al.  The power of the standard test for the presence of heterogeneity in meta‐analysis , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Network Analysis in the Social Sciences , 2009, Science.

[11]  AE Ades,et al.  Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies‡ , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[12]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta‐analysis , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[13]  S. Senn,et al.  Issues in performing a network meta-analysis , 2013, Statistical methods in medical research.

[14]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  Network meta‐analysis, electrical networks and graph theory , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[15]  Sibylle Sturtz,et al.  Unsolved issues of mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis: network size and inconsistency , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[16]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials , 2011 .

[17]  Paula Williamson,et al.  Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality , 2010, PloS one.

[18]  G. Lu,et al.  Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons , 2006 .

[19]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[20]  Alan H. Dorfman,et al.  Sound Confidence Intervals in the Heteroscedastic Linear Model Through Releveraging , 1991 .

[21]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  John Ioannidis,et al.  Exploring the Geometry of Treatment Networks , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[23]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  David C Hoaglin,et al.  Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.