The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed
Open accessAbstract
Network meta-analysis, in the context of a systematic review, is a meta-analysis in which multiple treatments (that is, three or more) are being compared using both direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across trials based on a common comparator. To ensure validity of findings from network meta-analyses, the systematic review must be designed rigorously and conducted carefully. Aspects of designing and conducting a systematic review for network meta-analysis include defining the review question, specifying eligibility criteria, searching for and selecting studies, assessing risk of bias and quality of evidence, conducting a network meta-analysis, interpreting and reporting findings. This commentary summarizes the methodologic challenges and research opportunities for network meta-analysis relevant to each aspect of the systematic review process based on discussions at a network meta-analysis methodology meeting we hosted in May 2010 at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Since this commentary reflects the discussion at that meeting, it is not intended to provide an overview of the field.
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
Salanti, G., Ades, A. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016 · Cited by 3,766
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
Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons
Lu, G., & Ades, A. E. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1875 · Cited by 2,166
Cipriani, 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
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 10×
“As a consequence of Combine direct and indirect evidence Direct evidence obtained within RCTs Indirect evidence obtained across RCTs B vs.”
InfluentialNetwork 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
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
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
Indirect comparisons of competing interventions
Glenny, A., Altman, D., Song, F., Sakarovitch, C., Deeks, J., D'Amico, R., Bradburn, M., & Eastwood, A. (2005) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta9260 · Cited by 677
Cited by
Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA
Chaimani, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavridis, D., Spyridonos, P., & Salanti, G. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076654 · Cited by 2,473
Puhan, M. A., Schunemann, H. J., Murad, M. H., Li, T., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Singh, J. A., Kessels, A. G., Guyatt, G. H., & for the GRADE Working Group (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g5630 · Cited by 1,812
Self-citationEvaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis
Salanti, G., Del Giovane, C., Chaimani, A., Caldwell, D. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099682 · Cited by 1,402
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
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, T., Puhan, M. A., Vedula, S. S., Singh, S., Dickersin, K., & The Ad Hoc Network Meta-analysis Methods Meeting Working Group
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2011-06-27
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79-79
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2151225337
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 24.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1741-7015-9-79
- The paper
- Li, T., Puhan, M. A., Vedula, S. S., Singh, S., Dickersin, K., & The Ad Hoc Network Meta-analysis Methods Meeting Working Group. (2011). Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-79
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.
