Exploring the Geometry of Treatment Networks

Georgia Salanti · Fotini K. Kavvoura · John P. A. Ioannidis

231 citations0/0 files storedAnnals of Internal Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several treatment options exist for many conditions. Randomized trial evidence on the relative merits of various options may be missing or biased. PURPOSE: To examine the patterns of trial evidence (network geometry) and explain their implications for the interpretation of the existing evidence on a treatment's relative effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Thompson ISI Web of Knowledge (last search April 2007). STUDY SELECTION: Published networks of randomized trials that included at least 4 treatments were identified. DATA EXTRACTION: For each network, data on the number of studies per treatment comparison were extracted by one investigator and verified by a second investigator. DATA SYNTHESIS: Indices were adopted from the ecological literature that measure diversity (number of treatments and how often they were tested) and co-occurrence (whether some treatment comparisons were preferred and others avoided). Eighteen eligible treatment networks were identified for different diseases, involving 4 to 16 alternative treatments and 10 to 84 trials. Networks in which 1 option (placebo or no treatment) was the typical comparator were star-shaped, even though several treatments might have had proven effectiveness. Other networks had different shapes. Some showed important co-occurrence that avoided specific head-to-head comparisons. Comparison choices sometimes seemed justified, such as when newer treatments were not compared with older ones already shown to be inferior, whereas other choices seemed to reflect preference bias. LIMITATIONS: Networks evolve over time as new trials accumulate, and their geometry may change. Statistical testing for co-occurrence is underpowered when few trials exist. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the geometry of a treatment network can offer valuable insights for the interpretation of total evidence when many treatment options are available.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 231 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 2004Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons 1997The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials 2002Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons 2007Evaluation of networks of randomized trials 2005Indirect comparisons of competing interventions 1996BORROWING STRENGTH FROM EXTERNAL TRIALS IN A META-ANALYSIS

Cited by

2014Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review 2013Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta‐analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons 2016Uncertainty in Treatment Rankings: Reanalysis of Network Meta-analyses of Randomized Trials 2014Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction 2016Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.