Cited by 401Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology

Open access
Efthimiou, Orestis, Debray, Thomas P. A., van Valkenhoef, Gert, Trelle, Sven, Panayidou, Klea, Moons, Karel G. M., Reitsma, Johannes B., Shang, Aijing +2 more·2016·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

Pairwise meta‐analysis is an established statistical tool for synthesizing evidence from multiple trials, but it is informative only about the relative efficacy of two specific interventions. The usefulness of pairwise meta‐analysis is thus limited in real‐life medical practice, where many competing interventions may be available for a certain condition and studies informing some of the pairwise comparisons may be lacking. This commonly encountered scenario has led to the development of network meta‐analysis (NMA). In the last decade, several applications, methodological developments, and empirical studies in NMA have been published, and the area is thriving as its relevance to public health is increasingly recognized. This article presents a review of the relevant literature on NMA methodology aiming to pinpoint the developments that have appeared in the field. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1195

Cites

188 of 188 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The hierarchical Bayesian framework allows continuous outcomes, including standardized mean differences, to be modeled at the arm level using a normal likelihood.

    “This approach follows the hierarchical Bayesian framework for network meta-analysis described by Lu and Ades (2004) and Dias et al. (2013), which allows continuous outcomes, including standardized mean differences, to be modeled at the arm level using a normal likelihood [37, 38].”

    From The Effect of Different Psychological Interventions on Athletes' Competitive Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. (2026) · cites this paper as [37]

    Section 3.2.2 describes hierarchical network meta-analysis using the likelihood of arm-level data. It gives a normal likelihood for contrast-level data, however, and its arm-level example uses a binomial likelihood. Our copy does not specify an arm-level normal likelihood for continuous outcomes or standardized mean differences; page numbers are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [126]126. Panayidou K, Gsteiger S, Kilcher G, Egger M, Carreras M, Efthimiou O, Debray TPA, Trelle S, Hummel N, on behalf of GetReal Methods Review Group. 2015. Get Real in mathematical modelling: A review of methods predicting drug effectiveness from randomized trial data. Research Synthesis Methods Submitted.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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
Affiliations
  • University of Ioannina (GR)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Department of Epidemiology University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen Groningen The Netherlands
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
Corresponding author
Efthimiou, Orestis
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-11
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
236-263
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W2237437504
Cited by
401
References
187
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (115546)
  • European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
network meta-analysis, comparative effectiveness, evidence synthesis, method development
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis as Topic, Clinical Trials as Topic, Computer Simulation, Humans, Placebos, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Software, Statistics as Topic, Models, Statistical, Databases, Bibliographic

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