Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study

AbstractObjectiveTo examine whether the continuous updating of networks of prospectively planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (“living” network meta-analysis) provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis in comparative effectiveness of medical interventions earlier than the updating o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMJ (Online) 2018-02, Vol.360, p.k585-k585
Main Authors: Nikolakopoulou, Adriani, Mavridis, Dimitris, Furukawa, Toshi A, Cipriani, Andrea, Tricco, Andrea C, Straus, Sharon E, Siontis, George C M, Egger, Matthias, Salanti, Georgia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cardiology
Clinical trials
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Drug therapy
Endocrinology
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Hypotheses
Hypothesis testing
Medical research
Meta-analysis
Network Meta-Analysis
Psychiatry
Research methodology
Rheumatology
Systematic review
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:AbstractObjectiveTo examine whether the continuous updating of networks of prospectively planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (“living” network meta-analysis) provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis in comparative effectiveness of medical interventions earlier than the updating of conventional, pairwise meta-analysis.DesignEmpirical study of the accumulating evidence about the comparative effectiveness of clinical interventions.Data sourcesDatabase of network meta-analyses of RCTs identified through searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until 14 April 2015.Eligibility criteria for study selectionNetwork meta-analyses published after January 2012 that compared at least five treatments and included at least 20 RCTs. Clinical experts were asked to identify in each network the treatment comparison of greatest clinical interest. Comparisons were excluded for which direct and indirect evidence disagreed, based on side, or node, splitting test (P
ISSN:0959-8138
1756-1833
DOI:10.1136/bmj.k585