Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons

By Thomas Lumley. Statistics in Medicine, 2002

1,190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/095c669608200352d57cf7f7bc98ec83e0ce1f7b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009, methodology): “Network meta-analyses, also known as multiple treatments meta-analyses, can be used to analyze data from comparisons of many different treatments [176,177].”
Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 4 (2013, background): “This accords with the commonsense notion of inconsistency, which views it as a property of loops of evidence.(14,15) Every additional independent loop in a network of 2-arm trials represents 1 additional ICDF and one further way in which potential inconsistency can be realized.”
NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials (2011, background): “Perhaps the most general code for frequentist software is that developed by Lumley.(22) However, this fits a different model from the one described in this paper which does not assume consistency of direct and indirect evidence and will be discussed in TSD4.”
GetReal in network meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology (2016, methodology): “…and Lumley (2008), Dias et al. (2010b), Donegan et al. (2012, 2013a), Jansen (2012), Krahn et al. (2013), Lu et al. (2011), Lu and Ades (2009), Lumley (2002), Mills et al. (2011b, 2013a), Naudet et al. (2013), Rücker (2012), Rücker and Schwarzer (2014), Salanti et al. (2009), Schmid et al.…”
Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis (2010, methodology): “Inconsistency/ incoherence models have also been proposed [13, 16].”
Network Meta-Analysis Using R: A Review of Currently Available Automated Packages (2014, methodology): “NMA can be performed either under a frequentist or a Bayesian framework, and several models have been proposed under both frameworks [5–9].”
Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis (2013, background): “Consistency in a network meta-analysis can be evaluated statistically by comparing the direct and indirect summary effects in specific loops (8, 18) or across a network by fitting models that allow and do not allow for inconsistency (4, 23, 24).”
Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. (2003, methodology): “Statistical expertise: Psaty, Lumley.”
Network Meta-analysis (2015, background): “The inconsistency terms ω AJd are taken to be ﬁxed parameters (White et al. 2012), although random inconsistency terms are also possible (Lumley 2002; Jackson et al. 2014).”
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, methodology): “For networks of two-arm trials that contain loops, Lumley [18] introduced a frequentist model that uses one variance parameter to summarize inconsistency in the network as a whole.”