The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automating network meta‐analysis
Abstract
Mixed treatment comparison (MTC) (also called network meta‐analysis) is an extension of traditional meta‐analysis to allow the simultaneous pooling of data from clinical trials comparing more than two treatment options. Typically, MTCs are performed using general‐purpose Markov chain Monte Carlo software such as WinBUGS, requiring a model and data to be specified using a specific syntax. It would be preferable if, for the most common cases, both could be derived from a well‐structured data file that can be easily checked for errors. Automation is particularly valuable for simulation studies in which the large number of MTCs that have to be estimated may preclude manual model specification and analysis. Moreover, automated model generation raises issues that provide additional insight into the nature of MTC. We present a method for the automated generation of Bayesian homogeneous variance random effects consistency models, including the choice of basic parameters and trial baselines, priors, and starting values for the Markov chain(s). We validate our method against the results of five published MTCs. The method is implemented in freely available open source software. This means that performing an MTC no longer requires manually writing a statistical model. This reduces time and effort, and facilitates error checking of the dataset. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations
Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. (1998) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787 · Cited by 6,045
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis
Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Caldwell, D. M., & Ades, A. E. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3767 · Cited by 2,521
Self-citationCipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Geddes, J. R., Higgins, J. P., Churchill, R., Watanabe, N., Nakagawa, A., Omori, I. M., McGuire, H., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60046-5 · Cited by 1,654
Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons
Lumley, T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1201 · Cited by 1,206
Evaluation of networks of randomized trials
Salanti, G., Higgins, J. P., Ades, A., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280207080643 · Cited by 1,078
Self-citationMultivariate Random-effects Meta-regression: Updates to Mvmeta
White, I. R. (2011) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x1101100206 · Cited by 400
Cited by
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis
Cahill, K., Stevens, S., Perera, R., & Lancaster, T. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009329.pub2 · Cited by 1,243
Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians
Rouse, B., Chaimani, A., & Li, T. (2017) · Internal and Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7 · Cited by 875
GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology
Efthimiou, O., Debray, T. P. A., van Valkenhoef, G., Trelle, S., Panayidou, K., Moons, K. G. M., Reitsma, J. B., Shang, A., Salanti, G., & on behalf of GetReal Methods Review Group (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1195 · Cited by 401
Sun, F., Wu, S., Guo, S., Yu, K., Yang, Z., Li, L., Zhang, Y., Quan, X., Ji, L., & Zhan, S. (2015) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2015.07.015 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- van Valkenhoef, G., Lu, G., de Brock, B., Hillege, H., Ades, A. E., & Welton, N. J.
- Venue
- Research Synthesis Methods
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-08-23
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 285-299
- ISSN
- 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-2887
- OpenAlex
- W2161817962
- Cited by
- 786
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 16.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automating network meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jrsm.1054
- The paper
- van Valkenhoef, G., Lu, G., de Brock, B., Hillege, H., Ades, A. E., & Welton, N. J. (2012). Automating network meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1054
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
