CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Clinical practice guidelines implementationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in Research

Use of network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines

Open access
Kanters, Steve, Ford, Nathan, Druyts, Eric, Thorlund, Kristian, Mills, Edward J, Bansback, Nick·2016·Bulletin of the World Health Organization
DOI 10.2471/blt.16.174326PMC PMC5043215
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) has conducted two major updates to global guidance for the management of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in 2016. (1,2) Recommendations made by WHO can have an important effect on policy and practice, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. For instance, a 2014 survey found that over three-quarters of all 158 recommendations for HIV and tuberculosis were incorporated into national guidelines. (3) Clinical guidelines are developed through multi-step processes that ensure that guidelines are feasible within the current clinical environment and that they are based on the best available evidence. For the latest HIV and HCV guidelines, WHO used network meta-analysis to inform treatment recommendations. An expansion of conventional pairwise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis includes multiple interventions within a single analysis and estimates the relative treatment effect between each two treatments compared using direct or indirect evidence. Although it is often acknowledged that having the most up-to-date evidence is critical to the development of clinical guidelines, it is equally important that the optimal analytical methods are used to appraise the evidence. We explain here why network meta-analysis lends itself to the development of clinical guidelines and why it may be used more often in this context. WHO has a history of improving the methods it uses for developing its guidelines. Following calls for greater transparency in the use of evidence for decision-making, (4) WHO adopted a process for guideline development in 2007 that included the use of the GRADE approach (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) to support decision-making. In addition to clinical evidence, WHO guideline groups take account of factors such as patient preferences, feasibility, costs and human rights. (5) To support decision-making beyond clinical effectiveness, mathematical models have been used to appraise the cost-effectiveness and epidemiological impact of HIV testing and treatment strategies in 2013. (6) WHO guidelines are regularly revised, generally every 3-5 years, to provide up-to-date guidance on interventions to contain or reduce major public health threats. With an ever-growing number of treatment options for HIV and HCV, methods used to synthesize the evidence within the guideline development procedures should maximize the use of all evidence and generate results that can be translated into recommendations. Although the use of network meta-analysis for WHO guideline development is recent, the method is well established within national health technology assessment agencies. It has become essential to formulating recommendations on reimbursements by health care agencies around the world. The method has also recently been adopted by Cochrane, and we found that since 2015, 10% (23/230) of systematic reviews published by this organization used network meta-analysis. The method has numerous qualities that lend themselves to decision-making processes such as clinical guidelines development. In 2015, GRADE working groups published guidance on how to use GRADE in conjunction with network meta-analysis. (7) Furthermore, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has included recommendations on network meta-analysis within its clinical guidelines manual. (8) However, in 2012 only 8% of 138 NICE clinical guidelines had used network meta-analysis, (9) but the percentage is likely to be higher today. Systematic evidence appraisal, but not the network meta-analysis approach, was used to formulate recommendations in other recent, major guidelines for HIV and HCV disease. (10-12) Network meta-analysis offers several advantages to the process of developing guidelines. One advantage is the ability to make a quantitative comparison of interventions that have not been directly compared in studies. …

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 · 10.2471/blt.16.174326

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • The World Health Organization recommends network meta-analysis over pairwise meta-analyses as a basis for clinical guidelines.

    “Furthermore, since NMA can improve the precision of estimates by allowing integration of both direct and indirect treatment effect estimates 26 , it is recommended over pairwise meta-analyses by the World Health Organization as a basis for clinical guidelines 27 .”

    From Lack of evidence to favor specific preventive interventions in psychosis: a network meta‐analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [27]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Consolidated guidelines on HIV prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for key populations. 2016 update. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/246200/1/9789241511124-eng.pdf [cited 2016 Jul 29]. 27559558
  2. [2]Guidelines for the screening, care and treatment of persons with chronic hepatitis C infection. Updated version, April 2016. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/205035/1/9789241549615_eng.pdf [cited 2016 Jul 29]. 27227200

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kanters, S., Ford, N., Druyts, E., Thorlund, K., Mills, E. J., & Bansback, N.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Precision Global Health, 1505 West 2nd Ave #400, Vancouver BC, V6H3Y4, Canada.
Corresponding author
Kanters, Steve
ORCID
Venue
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
Publisher
WHO Press
Published
2016-08-30
Volume
94
Issue
10
Pages
782-784
ISSN
0042-9686 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2471/blt.16.174326
PMC
PMC5043215
OpenAlex
W2527038934
Cited by
121
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6
FWCI
12.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Bulletin of the World Health Organization (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
network meta-analysis, clinical guideline development, WHO guidelines, HIV treatment, GRADE, evidence synthesis, circumstantial evidence, cost-effectiveness, health technology assessment, evidence-based decision making, antiretroviral therapy, direct-acting antivirals, antiviral therapy, antiretroviral drug combinations, antiviral drug combinations

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