The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses – An Empirical Study

Jing Zhang · Yiping Yuan · Haitao Chu

28 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

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 Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

Network meta-analysis (NMA) expands the scope of a conventional pairwise meta-analysis to simultaneously compare multiple treatments, which has an inherent appeal for clinicians, patients, and policy decision makers. Two recent reports have shown that the impact of excluding a treatment on NMAs can be substantial. However, no one has assessed the impact of excluding a trial from NMAs, which is important because many NMAs selectively include trials in the analysis. This article empirically examines the impact of trial exclusion using both the arm-based (AB) and contrast-based (CB) approaches, by reanalyzing 20 published NMAs involving 725 randomized controlled trials and 449,325 patients. For the population-averaged absolute risk estimates using the AB approach, the average fold changes across all networks ranged from 1.004 (with standard deviation 0.004) to 1.072 (with standard deviation 0.184); while the maximal fold changes ranged from 1.032 to 2.349. In 12 out of 20 NMAs, a 1.20-fold or larger change is observed in at least one of the population-averaged absolute risk estimates. In addition, while excluding a trial can substantially change the estimated relative effects (e.g., log odds ratios), there is no systematic difference in terms of changes between the two approaches. Changes in treatment rankings are observed in 7 networks and changes in inconsistency are observed in 3 networks. We do not observe correlations between changes in treatment effects, treatment rankings and inconsistency. Finally, we recommend rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, logical study selection process, and reasonable network geometry to ensure robustness and generalizability of the results of NMAs.

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 — 28 citations exist upstream.

References

2015The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations 1997The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 2006Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons 2013Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions 1997A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.2011Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed 2009Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons 2003How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine

Cited by

2020Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Multiple Outcomes in Dental Research 2018Quantifying and presenting overall evidence in network meta‐analysis

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.