TABLE 158Results of MTC analysis for all comparative studies reporting global effect

An = 9, 2.58 (1.3 to 5.3)n = 5, 2.56 (1.6 to 4.1)n = 10, 2.16 (1.1 to 4.5)n = 2 to 1.11 (0.6 to 2.1)n = 1, 4.71 (2.0 to 11.4)n = 2, 1.57 (0.2 to 11.3)n = 1, 10.0 (0.7 to 167)n = 1, 1.37 (0.5 to 3.8)
0.83 (0.4 to 1.9)Bn = 5, 2.60 (1.6 to 4.3)n = 3, 5.46 (0.8 to 38.5)n = 1, 1.53 (0.6 to 4.2)n = 1, 1.45 (0.7 to 3.0)
2.78 (1.4 to 5.6)3.37 (1.7 to 6.8)Cn = 23, 0.65 (0.5 to 0.9)n = 1, 6.72 (0.8 to 58.8)n = 7, 1.49 (1.0 to 2.2)n = 1, 0.77 (0.2 to 3.2)n = 1, 1.13 (0.4 to 3.6)
3.10 (1.8 to 5.5)3.75 (1.7 to 8.4)1.11 (0.6 to 2.3)Dn = 4, 1.13 (0.4 to 3.6)n = 1, 0.45 (0.2 to 1.4)n = 1, 0.20 (0.1 to 0.6)n = 1, 0.22 (0.1 to 0.9)
2.00 (1.1 to 3.8)2.42 (1.2 to 5.1)0.72 (0.5 to 1.1)0.65 (0.3 to 1.2)E
2.55 (1.4 to 4.7)3.09 (1.2 to 8.4)0.92 (0.4 to 2.2)0.82 (0.4 to 1.8)1.27 (0.6 to 2.9)Fn = 1, 3.27 (0.8 to 13.8)n = 2, 0.55 (0.1 to 5.0)
4.73 (1.6 to 14.0)5.72 (2.0 to 16.8)1.70 (0.8 to 3.9)1.52 (0.5 to 4.5)2.35 (1.0 to 5.8)1.85 (0.6 to 6.1)G
1.20 (0.5 to 3.1)1.46 (0.5 to 4.2)0.44 (0.2 to 1.2)0.39 (0.1 to 1.1)0.60 (0.2 to 1.7)0.47 (0.2 to 1.4)0.26 (0.1 to 1.0)Hn = 1, 0.88 (0.3 to 2.7)n = 1, 0.93 (0.5 to 1.9)n = 1, 1.00 (0.1 to 7.0)
4.88 (0.7 to 33.2)5.91 (0.7 to 47.1)1.76 (0.2 to 13.4)1.57 (0.2 to 11.4)2.45 (0.3 to 18.3)1.91 (0.3 to 14.0)1.03 (0.1 to 9.1)4.06 (0.5 to 33.8)I
9.32 (1.0 to 104.5)11.27 (1.0 to 144.5)3.35 (0.3 to 40.9)2.99 (0.3 to 35.6)4.64 (0.4 to 56.2)3.65 (0.4 to 38.0)1.98 (0.2 to 27.5)7.73 (0.7 to 102)1.91 (0.1 to 41.7)J
1.10 (0.3 to 3.8)1.33 (0.4 to 4.4)0.40 (0.1 to 1.3)0.35 (0.1 to 1.2)0.55 (0.2 to 1.9)0.43 (0.1 to 1.6)0.23 (0.1 to 1.0)0.90 (0.3 to 3.2)0.22 (0.0 to 2.2)0.12 (0.0 to 1.6)Kn = 1, 2.2 (0.6 to 7.7)
1.14 (0.4 to 3.2)1.38 (0.4 to 4.7)0.41 (0.1 to 1.3)0.37 (0.1 to 1.1)0.57 (0.2 to 1.8)0.45 (0.1 to 1.4)0.24 (0.1 to 1.0)0.94 (0.3 to 3.1)0.23 (0.0 to 2.0)0.13 (0.0 to 1.5)1.04 (0.2 to 4.7)L
15.77 (0.6 to 1002)19.26 (0.7 to 1357)5.68 (0.2 to 396)5.10 (0.2 to 335)7.90 (0.3 to 545)6.19 (0.2 to 409)3.38 (0.1 to 249)13.2 (0.4 to 943)3.36 (0.1 to 306)1.75 (0.0 to 180)14.6 (0.4 to 1085)14.03 (0.5 to 974)M
1.28 (0.3 to 5.5)1.54 (0.3 to 7.1)0.46 (0.1 to 2.0)0.41 (0.1 to 1.7)0.64 (0.1 to 2.8)0.50 (0.1 to 2.4)0.27 (0.1 to 1.5)1.05 (0.2 to 4.7)0.26 (0.0 to 2.9)0.14 (0.0 to 2.0)1.16 (0.3 to 5.1)1.12 (0.2 to 6.0)0.08 (0.0 to 2.9)Nn = 2, 1.32 (0.8 to 2.3)
1.60 (0.5 to 5.4)1.95 (0.5 to 8.4)0.58 (0.2 to 2.3)0.52 (0.1 to 1.9)0.80 (0.2 to 3.1)0.63 (0.2 to 2.0)0.34 (0.1 to 1.7)1.33 (0.3 to 6.2)0.33 (0.0 to 3.3)0.17 (0.0 to 2.1)1.46 (0.3 to 8.3)1.41 (0.3 to 6.8)0.10 (0.0 to 3.3)1.26 (0.2 to 8.7)O
1.63 (0.2 to 12.1)1.98 (0.3 to 14.7)0.59 (0.1 to 4.3)0.53 (0.1 to 3.7)0.81 (0.1 to 6.0)0.64 (0.1 to 5.0)0.34 (0.0 to 3.0)1.35 (0.2 to 10.0)0.33 (0.0 to 5.3)0.17 (0.0 to 3.5)1.48 (0.2 to 10.9)1.43 (0.2 to 12.5)0.10 (0.0 to 4.9)1.28 (0.3 to 4.9)1.02 (0.1 to 10.2)P
3.19 (0.4 to 27.6)3.84 (0.4 to 33.7)1.14 (0.2 to 8.9)1.03 (0.1 to 8.9)1.59 (0.2 to 12.8)1.25 (0.1 to 11.6)0.67 (0.1 to 5.9)2.66 (0.3 to 26.0)0.65 (0.0 to 12.2)0.34 (0.0 to 8.0)2.90 (0.3 to 30.8)2.80 (0.3 to 28.9)0.19 (0.0 to 10.1)2.54 (0.2 to 31.9)2.0 (0.2 to 23.5)1.97 (0.1 to 34.8)Q

A, inactive control; B, usual care; C, disc surgery; D, epidural/nerve block; E, chemonucleolysis; F, non-opioids; G, intraoperative interventions; H, traction; I, manipulation; J, alternative/non-traditional; K, active PT; L, passive PT; M, biological agents; N, activity restriction; O, opioids; P, education/advice; Q, spinal cord stimulation; n, number of studies included in conventional pair-wise meta-analysis.

Results of direct standard pairwise meta-analyses (OR plus 95% CI rounded to one decimal place) are reported in the top right-hand triangle and the results of the MTC analyses (odds ratio plus 95% credible interval rounded up to one decimal place) are reported in the bottom left-hand triangle.

Statistically significant findings have been highlighted using shading.

OR > 1.0 favours intervention compared with control.

From: 7, Mixed treatment comparisons: results

Cover of The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Sciatica: Systematic Review and Economic Model
The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Sciatica: Systematic Review and Economic Model.
Health Technology Assessment, No. 15.39.
Lewis R, Williams N, Matar HE, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2011 Nov.
© 2011, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.