Network Meta‐Analysis
Abstract
Health care practitioners, decision-makers, and consumers want to know which treatment is preferable among many competing options. Network meta-analysis is an extension of meta-analysis that allows the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions. It combines the results of studies that compare two or more interventions for the same condition; it is not necessary for all of the treatments to have been compared within any of the studies. The name network meta-analysis derives from a representation of the different within-study comparisons as a network of evidence linking each intervention with every other in the network. The validity of network meta-analysis rests on an assumption of consistency or transitivity, requiring that the studies comparing different interventions have similar variables that modify effects. The standard output of a network meta-analysis is a set of estimates of relative effects for all pairs of interventions. Network meta-analysis can also provide a hierarchy of all the interventions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Network meta-analysis can make use of all randomized data and increase precision.
“It can, therefore, make use of all randomized data and increase precision(Salanti and Higgins, 2022).”
From Efficacy, acceptability and side-effects of oral versus long-acting- injectables antipsychotics: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Salanti and Higgins, 2022
Cites
Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Chaimani, A., Atkinson, L. Z., Ogawa, Y., Leucht, S., Ruhe, H. G., Turner, E. H., Higgins, J. P. T., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32802-7 · Cited by 3,541 · see citing works
Self-citationConceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis
Cipriani, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Geddes, J. R., & Salanti, G. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008 · Cited by 1,072 · see citing works
Self-citationTurner, R. M., Davey, J., Clarke, M. J., Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. (2012) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dys041 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Self-citationA practical introduction to multivariate meta-analysis
Mavridis, D., & Salanti, G. (2013) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280211432219 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Self-citationHutton, B., Salanti, G., Chaimani, A., Caldwell, D. M., Schmid, C., Thorlund, K., Mills, E., Catalá-López, F., Turner, L., Altman, D. G., et al. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092508 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, D., Schneider-Thoma, J., Siafis, S., Qin, M., Wu, H., Zhu, Y., Davis, J. M., Priller, J., & Leucht, S. (2024) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2024.03.003 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
- Authors
- Salanti, G., & Higgins, J. P. T.
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews in Health Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-04-22
- Pages
- 238-257
- OpenAlex
- W4280568073
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 5
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- network meta-analysis, consistency assumption, transitivity, relative effects, evidence networks, treatment preferences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
