Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis

989 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014, background): “A network meta-analysis produces inferences regarding the relative effectiveness or safety of multiple treatments [1–3].”
Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA (2013, background): “The assumption of consistency (agreement between direct and indirect sources of evidence) underlies the methodology and if it holds, NMA can give valuable information to patients, practitioners and decision makers [3,4].”
Evidence-based guidelines for treating bipolar disorder: revised third edition Recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology (2009, neutral): “In previous editions (Goodwin, 2003, 2009), we ranked individual recommendations on the basis of the supporting evidence using this scheme.”
Network Meta-Analysis Using R: A Review of Currently Available Automated Packages (2014, methodology): “The presence of heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network can be quantified and assessed statistically, for which different methods have been proposed [11–16].”
GetReal in network meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology (2016, background): “…tests for inconsistency, a conceptual/theoretical assessment of the transitivity assumption should always take place before an NMA is conducted (Cipriani et al., 2013), and the studies included in an NMA should always be scanned for important differences in terms of patients, interventions,…”