Cargando…
Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians
BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analytic tool that allows simultaneous comparison between several management/treatment alternatives even when direct comparisons of the alternatives (such as the case in which treatments are compared against placebo and have not been compared aga...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5975630/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1132-9 |
_version_ | 1783327027160416256 |
---|---|
author | Al Khalifah, Reem Florez, Ivan D. Guyatt, Gordon Thabane, Lehana |
author_facet | Al Khalifah, Reem Florez, Ivan D. Guyatt, Gordon Thabane, Lehana |
author_sort | Al Khalifah, Reem |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analytic tool that allows simultaneous comparison between several management/treatment alternatives even when direct comparisons of the alternatives (such as the case in which treatments are compared against placebo and have not been compared against each other) are unavailable. Though there are still a limited number of pediatric NMAs published, the rapid increase in NMAs in other areas suggests pediatricians will soon be frequently facing this new form of evidence summary. DISCUSSION: Evaluating the NMA evidence requires serial judgments on the creditability of the process of NMA conduct, and evidence quality assessment. First clinicians need to evaluate the basic standards applicable to any meta-analysis (e.g. comprehensive search, duplicate assessment of eligibility, risk of bias, and data abstraction). Then evaluate specific issues related to NMA including precision, transitivity, coherence, and rankings. CONCLUSIONS: In this article we discuss how clinicians can evaluate the credibility of NMA methods, and how they can make judgments regarding the quality (certainty) of the evidence. We illustrate the concepts using recent pediatric NMA publications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5975630 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59756302018-05-31 Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians Al Khalifah, Reem Florez, Ivan D. Guyatt, Gordon Thabane, Lehana BMC Pediatr Debate BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analytic tool that allows simultaneous comparison between several management/treatment alternatives even when direct comparisons of the alternatives (such as the case in which treatments are compared against placebo and have not been compared against each other) are unavailable. Though there are still a limited number of pediatric NMAs published, the rapid increase in NMAs in other areas suggests pediatricians will soon be frequently facing this new form of evidence summary. DISCUSSION: Evaluating the NMA evidence requires serial judgments on the creditability of the process of NMA conduct, and evidence quality assessment. First clinicians need to evaluate the basic standards applicable to any meta-analysis (e.g. comprehensive search, duplicate assessment of eligibility, risk of bias, and data abstraction). Then evaluate specific issues related to NMA including precision, transitivity, coherence, and rankings. CONCLUSIONS: In this article we discuss how clinicians can evaluate the credibility of NMA methods, and how they can make judgments regarding the quality (certainty) of the evidence. We illustrate the concepts using recent pediatric NMA publications. BioMed Central 2018-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5975630/ /pubmed/29843665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1132-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Debate Al Khalifah, Reem Florez, Ivan D. Guyatt, Gordon Thabane, Lehana Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians |
title | Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians |
title_full | Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians |
title_fullStr | Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians |
title_full_unstemmed | Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians |
title_short | Network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians |
title_sort | network meta-analysis: users’ guide for pediatricians |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5975630/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1132-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alkhalifahreem networkmetaanalysisusersguideforpediatricians AT florezivand networkmetaanalysisusersguideforpediatricians AT guyattgordon networkmetaanalysisusersguideforpediatricians AT thabanelehana networkmetaanalysisusersguideforpediatricians |