Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis

By S. Dias, N. Welton, D. Caldwell, A. Ades. Statistics in Medicine, 2010

2,234 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Statistics and Probability, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd3d04ae49f8f23e4786f71cf145e4edb8a2b678

How researchers see this paper

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

In Statistics and Probability

In Surgery

Citations in the corpus

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): “[30] have discussed the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.”
Network Meta-analysis (2015, methodology): “The ﬁrst part of table 1 shows the parameterization of the side-splitting model as proposed by Dias et al. (2010).”
Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. (2011, background): “…reference treatment A as long as ll interventions are connected in one network. dAB,dAC, dAD, . . . ,dAk, are called basic parameters of the model that are estimated based n the available studies. dBC,dBD,dCD,, and so on are functional parameters and can be calculated based on the (pooled)…”
A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses (2013, methodology): “The node-splitting method [14] extends the consistency model by only one parameter that captures the difference between a contrast, e.”
Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression (2012, background): “Some authors have proposed ways to assess consistency directly from fitting consistency models (Dias et al., 2010, Lu et al., 2011).”
Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool (2012, methodology): “This approach (with a modification for probabilistic modeling of the ‘unclear’ risk of bias) has been used by Dias et al. (2010c).”
Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies (2012, background): “Dias et al. (2010) described two approaches to separating direct from indirect evidence for specific treatment comparisons, motivated primarily by considerations of loop inconsistency.”
CINeMA: Software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta‐analysis (2020, neutral): “In each box, the results of the second method, SIDE (Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence) (24), are shown, including the relative effect estimate, the direct effect, the indirect effect, the inconsistency measure, and the respective p-value.”
Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 4 (2013, methodology): “Discounting this loop gives ICDF = 7.(25) An FE NMA (consistency model) with a binomial likelihood and logit link(8,10) was fitted to the data, taking SK as the reference treatment, that is, the 8 treatment effects relative to SK are the basic parameters and have been estimated, whereas the remainin”
Automated generation of node‐splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta‐analysis (2015, methodology): “It may also be useful to inspect the densities (Dias et al., 2010), which can be achieved as follows:”