Cited by 1,206Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons

Lumley, Thomas·2002·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

I present methods for assessing the relative effectiveness of two treatments when they have not been compared directly in a randomized trial but have each been compared to other treatments. These network meta‐analysis techniques allow estimation of both heterogeneity in the effect of any given treatment and inconsistency (‘incoherence’) in the evidence from different pairs of treatments. A simple estimation procedure using linear mixed models is given and used in a meta‐analysis of treatments for acute myocardial infarction. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1201

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A recent review of published ecological meta-analyses revealed that the majority of them are produced in a handful of countries around the world, exacerbating academic inequality.

    “A recent review of published ecological meta-analyses revealed that the majority of them are produced in a handful of countries around the world, exacerbating academic inequality 74 .”

    From Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018) · cites this paper as [74]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lumley, T.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Lumley, Thomas
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-07-26
Volume
21
Issue
16
Pages
2313-2324
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2133531206
Cited by
1,206
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 93 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 73
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, indirect treatment comparison, treatment effect heterogeneity, linear mixed models, acute myocardial infarction
MeSH terms
Fibrinolytic Agents, Humans, Myocardial Infarction, Tissue Plasminogen Activator, Recombinant Proteins, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Thrombolytic Therapy, Angioplasty

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