Network meta-analysis: a norm for comparative effectiveness?
Open accessThe 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
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.
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-analyses of existing datasets make it possible to estimate comparative efficacy, summarise and interpret the wider picture of the evidence base, and understand the relative merits of multiple interventions.
“Network meta-analyses of existing datasets make it possible to estimate comparative efficacy, summarise and interpret the wider picture of the evidence base, and to understand the relative merits of the multiple interventions.6”
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
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Howel, D., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533295 · Cited by 3,657 · see citing works
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Light, R. J., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291021 · Cited by 1,880 · see citing works
Salanti, G. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1037 · Cited by 1,729 · see citing works
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Complications and considerations in network meta-analysis have been discussed in several accessible texts.(7-12) Differences between network meta-analysis and standard meta-analysis are not, in our view, as substantial as many fear.”
BackgroundSelf-citationNetwork meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons
Lumley, T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1201 · Cited by 1,206 · see citing works
Conceptual 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-citationJansen, J. P., Fleurence, R., Devine, B., Itzler, R. F., Barrett, A., Hawkins, N., Lee, K., Boersma, C., Annemans, L., & Cappelleri, J. C. (2011) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002 · Cited by 1,029 · see citing works
Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons
Lu, G., & Ades, A. E. (2006) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214505000001302 · Cited by 756 · see citing works
Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis
Mills, E. J., Thorlund, K., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f2914 · Cited by 742 · see citing works
BORROWING STRENGTH FROM EXTERNAL TRIALS IN A META-ANALYSIS
Higgins, J. P. T., & WHITEHEAD, A. (1996) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19961230)15:24 · Cited by 553 · see citing works
Self-citationStochastically dependent effect sizes.
Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (1994) · Cited by 485 · see citing works
Siontis, G. C. M., Stefanini, G. G., Mavridis, D., Siontis, K. C., Alfonso, F., Pérez-Vizcayno, M. J., Byrne, R. A., Kastrati, A., Meier, B., Salanti, G., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60657-2 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 1
Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Sutton, A. J., & Ades, A. E. (2013) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x13487604 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Self-citationMeta-analysis by the confidence profile method
Eddy, D. M. (1992) · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [12](Series of 7 papers). Medical Decision Making 2013; 33 : 597-691.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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-citationHuhn, M., Nikolakopoulou, A., Schneider-Thoma, J., Krause, M., Samara, M., Peter, N., Arndt, T., Bäckers, L., Rothe, P., Cipriani, A., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31135-3 · Cited by 1,753 · see citing works
Tsapas, A., Avgerinos, I., Karagiannis, T., Malandris, K., Manolopoulos, A., Andreadis, P., Liakos, A., Matthews, D. R., & Bekiari, E. (2020) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m20-0864 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
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) · Focus · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.16407 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Self-citationReported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies
Hogervorst, M. A., Vreman, R. A., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A. K., & Goettsch, W. G. (2022) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1356 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- Higgins, J. P. T., & Welton, N. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Higgins, Julian P T
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 386
- Issue
- 9994
- Pages
- 628-630
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2130048482
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 4.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0514-10114)
- Medical Research Council (MR/K025643/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- network meta-analysis, in-stent restenosis, percutaneous coronary intervention, drug-eluting stents, everolimus-eluting stent, drug-coated balloon, comparative effectiveness, methodological quality, publication bias, risk of bias assessment
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Stents, Coronary Restenosis, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
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
