Research Synthesis Methods

Consistency and inconsistency in network meta‐analysis: concepts and models for multi‐arm studies

Journal Article

Meta‐analyses that simultaneously compare multiple treatments (usually referred to as network meta‐analyses or mixed treatment comparisons) are becoming increasingly common. An important component of a network meta‐analysis is an assessment of the extent to which different sources of evidence are compatible, both substantively and statistically. A simple indirect comparison may be confounded if the studies involving one of the treatments of interest are fundamentally different from the studies involving the other treatment of interest. Here, we discuss methods for addressing inconsistency of evidence from comparative studies of different treatments. We define and review basic concepts of heterogeneity and inconsistency, and attempt to introduce a distinction between ‘loop inconsistency’ and ‘design inconsistency’. We then propose that the notion of design‐by‐treatment interaction provides a useful general framework for investigating inconsistency. In particular, using design‐by‐treatment interactions successfully addresses complications that arise from the presence of multi‐arm trials in an evidence network. We show how the inconsistency model proposed by Lu and Ades is a restricted version of our full design‐by‐treatment interaction model and that there may be several distinct Lu–Ades models for any particular data set. We introduce novel graphical methods for depicting networks of evidence, clearly depicting multi‐arm trials and illustrating where there is potential for inconsistency to arise. We apply various inconsistency models to data from trials of different comparisons among four smoking cessation interventions and show that models seeking to address loop inconsistency alone can run into problems. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Related Topics

Related Publications

Related Content

Site Footer

Address:

This website is provided by John Wiley & Sons Limited, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ (Company No: 00641132, VAT No: 376766987)

Published features on StatisticsViews.com are checked for statistical accuracy by a panel from the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics (ENBIS)   to whom Wiley and StatisticsViews.com express their gratitude. This panel are: Ron Kenett, David Steinberg, Shirley Coleman, Irena Ograjenšek, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Rainer Göb, Philippe Castagliola, Xavier Tort-Martorell, Bart De Ketelaere, Antonio Pievatolo, Martina Vandebroek, Lance Mitchell, Gilbert Saporta, Helmut Waldl and Stelios Psarakis.