Importance of assessing and adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity in network meta-analysis: a case study of psoriasis

Chris G Cameron · Brian Hutton · Cheryl Druchok · Sean C. McElligott · Sandhya C. Nair · Agata Schubert +3 more

42 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

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 Psoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

AIM: The importance of adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity when conducting network meta-analyses (NMAs) was demonstrated using a case study of biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Bayesian NMAs were conducted for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 response. Several covariates were considered to account for cross-trial differences: baseline risk (i.e., placebo response), prior biologic use, body weight, psoriasis duration, age, race and baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score. Model fit was evaluated. RESULTS: The baseline risk-adjusted NMA, which adjusts for multiple observed and unobserved effect modifiers, was associated with the best model fit. Lack of adjustment for cross-trial differences led to different clinical interpretations of findings. CONCLUSION: Failure to adjust for cross-trial differences in NMA can have important implications for clinical interpretations when studying the comparative efficacy of healthcare interventions.

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 — 42 citations exist upstream.

References

2002How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?2004Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons 2012Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool 2004Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta‐regression 2011NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials 2009A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered 2002Bayesian random effects meta‐analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales 2013Assessing key assumptions of network meta‐analysis: a review of methods

Cited by

2024Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)2022Epidemiological, methodological, and statistical characteristics of network meta-analysis in anaesthesia: a systematic review

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.