Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 3;9(7):e99682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099682. eCollection 2014.

Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
2
Statistics Unit, Department of Clinical and Diagnostic Medicine and Public Health, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
3
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
4
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

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.

PMID:
24992266
PMCID:
PMC4084629
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0099682
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center