Cited by 756Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons

Lu, Guobing, Ades, A. E·2006·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

Randomized comparisons among several treatments give rise to an incomplete-blocks structure known as mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs). To analyze such data structures, it is crucial to assess whether the disparate evidence sources provide consistent information about the treatment contrasts. In this article we propose a general method for assessing evidence inconsistency in the framework of Bayesian hierarchical models. We begin with the distinction between basic parameters, which have prior distributions, and functional parameters, which are defined in terms of basic parameters. Based on a graphical analysis of MTC structures, evidence inconsistency is defined as a relation between a functional parameter and at least two basic parameters, supported by at least three evidence sources. The inconsistency degrees of freedom (ICDF) is the number of such inconsistencies. We represent evidence consistency as a set of linear relations between effect parameters on the log odds ratio scale, then relax these relations to allow for inconsistency by adding to the model random inconsistency factors (ICFs). The number of ICFs is determined by the ICDF. The overall consistency between evidence sources can be assessed by comparing models with and without ICFs, whereas their posterior distribution reflects the extent of inconsistency in particular evidence cycles. The methods are elucidated using two published datasets, implemented with standard Markov chain Monte Carlo software.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1198/016214505000001302

Cites

5 of 5 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lu, G., & Ades, A. E.
Affiliations
Royal Statistical Society (GB)
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
2006-06-01
Volume
101
Issue
474
Pages
447-459
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W1971895240
Cited by
756
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 44
FWCI
8.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
network meta-analysis, Bayesian hierarchical model, incomplete block designs, log odds ratio, model comparison

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