CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,732Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods

Open access
Rücker, Gerta, Schwarzer, Guido·2015·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8PMC PMC4521472
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis is used to compare three or more treatments for the same condition. Within a Bayesian framework, for each treatment the probability of being best, or, more general, the probability that it has a certain rank can be derived from the posterior distributions of all treatments. The treatments can then be ranked by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). For comparing treatments in a network meta-analysis, we propose a frequentist analogue to SUCRA which we call P-score that works without resampling. METHODS: P-scores are based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the frequentist network meta-analysis estimates under normality assumption and can easily be calculated as means of one-sided p-values. They measure the mean extent of certainty that a treatment is better than the competing treatments. RESULTS: Using case studies of network meta-analysis in diabetes and depression, we demonstrate that the numerical values of SUCRA and P-Score are nearly identical. CONCLUSIONS: Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling. Like the SUCRA values, P-scores induce a ranking of all treatments that mostly follows that of the point estimates, but takes precision into account. However, neither SUCRA nor P-score offer a major advantage compared to looking at credible or confidence intervals.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Fictitious example. Two normal posterior distributions following N(0,1) (dashed) and N(0.5, 22) (continuous) with credible intervals. The probability that treatment A, corresponding to the flat distribution, is better than treatment B, corresponding to the steep distribution, is 59 %
Fig. 1 Fictitious example. Two normal posterior distributions following N(0,1) (dashed) and N(0.5, 22) (continuous) with credible intervals. The probability that treatment A, corresponding to the flat distribution, is better than treatment B, corresponding to the steep distribution, is 59 %CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Fictitious example: ROC curve. ROC curve and area under the curve (AUC) corresponding to the example of Fig. 1 (AUC = 0.59)
Fig. 2 Fictitious example: ROC curve. ROC curve and area under the curve (AUC) corresponding to the example of Fig. 1 (AUC = 0.59)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Diabetes data, analyzed with WinBUGS. Diabetes data, analyzed with WinBUGS and ordered by treatment effects (REM = random effects model, MCMC = Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis with 3 chains, 40000 iterations, 10000 burn in iterations discarded). CI = credible interval (median and 2.5 % / 97.5 % quantiles). The estimated common variance between studies was σ 2=0.1221
Fig. 3 Diabetes data, analyzed with WinBUGS. Diabetes data, analyzed with WinBUGS and ordered by treatment effects (REM = random effects model, MCMC = Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis with 3 chains, 40000 iterations, 10000 burn in iterations discarded). CI = credible interval (median and 2.5 % / 97.5 % quantiles). The estimated common variance between studies was σ 2=0.1221CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Diabetes data, analyzed with R package netmeta. Diabetes data, analyzed with R package netmeta and ordered by treatment effects (REM = random effects model, CI = confidence interval). The estimated common between study variance was τ 2=0.1087
Fig. 4 Diabetes data, analyzed with R package netmeta. Diabetes data, analyzed with R package netmeta and ordered by treatment effects (REM = random effects model, CI = confidence interval). The estimated common between study variance was τ 2=0.1087CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Depression data, analyzed with WinBUGS. Depression data, analyzed with WinBUGS (REM = random effects model, MCMC = Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis with 3 chains, 40000 iterations, 10000 burn in iterations discarded). CI = credible interval (median and 2.5 % / 97.5 % quantiles). The estimated common between study variance was σ 2=0.2011
Fig. 5 Depression data, analyzed with WinBUGS. Depression data, analyzed with WinBUGS (REM = random effects model, MCMC = Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis with 3 chains, 40000 iterations, 10000 burn in iterations discarded). CI = credible interval (median and 2.5 % / 97.5 % quantiles). The estimated common between study variance was σ 2=0.2011CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Depression data, analyzed with R package netmeta. Depression data, analyzed with R package netmeta (REM = random effects model, CI = confidence interval). The estimated common between study variance was τ 2=0.1875
Fig. 6 Depression data, analyzed with R package netmeta. Depression data, analyzed with R package netmeta (REM = random effects model, CI = confidence interval). The estimated common between study variance was τ 2=0.1875CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,732

Related

Metadata

Authors
Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G.
Affiliations
University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Rücker, Gerta
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-07-31
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
58-58
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8
PMC
PMC4521472
OpenAlex
W2111999709
Cited by
1,732
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 249 · 2025: 253 · 2024: 267 · 2023: 229 · 2022: 226 · 2021: 191 · 2020: 148 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
28.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (RU1747/1-1)
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
treatment ranking, P-score, surface under the cumulative ranking curve, confidence intervals, diabetes mellitus, depression
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Biometry, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Biomedical Research

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