Network meta-analysis in health care decision making

Rochwerg, Bram; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Guyatt, Gordon

doi:10.5694/mja18.00001

Topics

Statistics, epidemiology and research design

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses play a crucial role in clinical decision making.1,2 By combining all studies that directly compare two alternative management strategies and providing a pooled estimate of effect, meta-analyses allow optimal understanding of the potential benefits and harms of available treatments.

McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Correspondence: rochwerg@mcmaster.ca

Series Editors

John R Attia

Michael P Jones

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 1049-1051.
2. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 777-784.
3. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP. Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2013; 346: f2914.
4. Li BZ, Threapleton DE, Wang JY, et al. Comparative effectiveness and tolerance of treatments for Helicobacter pylori: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2015; 351: h4052.
5. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ 2014; 348: g1741.
6. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 163-171.
7. Mbuagbaw L, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, et al. Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 79.
8. Brignardello-Petersen R, Rochwerg B, Guyatt GH. What is a network meta-analysis and how can we use it to inform clinical practice? Pol Arch Med Wewn 2014; 124: 659-660.
9. Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 349: g5630.
10. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401-406.
11. Alhazzani W, Guyatt G. An overview of the GRADE approach and a peak at the future. Med J Aust 2018. In press.
12. Brignardello-Petersen R, Bonner A, Alexander PE, et al. Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 93: 36-44.
13. White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JP. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 111-125.
14. Efthimiou O, Debray TP, van Valkenhoef G, et al. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods 2016; 7: 236-263.
15. Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Sindi A, et al. Fluids in Sepsis and Septic Shock Group. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 347-355.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.