Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis

Georgia Salanti, Cinzia Del Giovane, Anna Chaimani, Deborah M Caldwell, Julian P T Higgins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)

393 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Systematic reviews that collate data about the relative effects of multiple interventions via network meta-analysis are highly informative for decision-making purposes. A network meta-analysis provides two types of findings for a specific outcome: the relative treatment effect for all pairwise comparisons, and a ranking of the treatments. It is important to consider the confidence with which these two types of results can enable clinicians, policy makers and patients to make informed decisions. We propose an approach to determining confidence in the output of a network meta-analysis. Our proposed approach is based on methodology developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group for pairwise meta-analyses. The suggested framework for evaluating a network meta-analysis acknowledges (i) the key role of indirect comparisons (ii) the contributions of each piece of direct evidence to the network meta-analysis estimates of effect size; (iii) the importance of the transitivity assumption to the validity of network meta-analysis; and (iv) the possibility of disagreement between direct evidence and indirect evidence. We apply our proposed strategy to a systematic review comparing topical antibiotics without steroids for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations. The proposed framework can be used to determine confidence in the results from a network meta-analysis. Judgements about evidence from a network meta-analysis can be different from those made about evidence from pairwise meta-analyses.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e99682
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume9
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Jul 2014

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this