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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al Khalifah, Reem, Florez, Ivan D., Guyatt, Gordon, Thabane, Lehana
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