网状Meta分析相关术语和定义的研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：基于系统评价，探讨研究网状Meta分析（NMA）的术语和定义。方法：计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science 和the Cochrane library，时间检索范围为从各数据库建库至2014年2月26日。对所收集NMA的相关术语及其定义进行筛选，提取并对其进行对比分析，进而筛选最佳的术语和定义。结果：在收集NMA、间接比较、混合治疗效应、相似性、一致性和证据图等术语和定义基础上，重新定义调整间接比较、混合治疗效应、NMA和一致性。NMA为基于多个研究分析两个以上干预措施之间的间接比较结果（主要是调整间接比较）或者直接比较结果与间接比较结果的合并结果（混合治疗效应）的Meta分析。调整间接比较和混合治疗效应是NMA的两种特殊类型。结论：尽管本文系统研究了当前所有关于NMA的术语和定义，并进行了重新定义，但是仍需要大量研究来验证这些定义的全面性，以及这些术语的应用范围。

Abstract: Objective： To discuss related terms and definitions for network Meta-analysis(NMA) based on a systematic review.Methods：PubMed， EMBASE，Web of Science and the Cochrane library were systematically searched，and search time ranged from database inception to February 26th，2014.We screened studies to abstract and compare the terms and definitions，including the terms for NMA and its related assumption and characteristics in order to find the best terms and definitions.Results：We found the terms and definitions for NMA， indirect comparison，mixed treatment comparison，similarity，consistency，and evidence network and redefine the definitions for NMA， indirect comparison， mixed treatment comparison，and consistency based on all related terms and definitions for NMA. Those Meta-analysis which simultaneously analyzed the indirect estimate or combined estimate of direct and indirect estimate among two or more interventions based on several studies.So adjusted indirect comparison and mixed treatment comparison should be two types of NMA.Conclusion： Although we could redefine related terms for NMA based on all available definitions，future work are needed to investigate whether these definitions could represent all available situations and how these four terms should be used.

李伦,杨克虎,田金徽. 网状Meta分析相关术语和定义的研究[J]. .

参考文献

1. Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med[J]. 2013, 11: 159.
2. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine[J]. 2002, 21(16): 2313-2324.
3. Li T, Puhan M, Vedula S, et al. Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Medicine[J]. 2011, 9(1): 79.
4. Jansen JP, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. J Clin Epidemiol[J]. 2012, 65(7): 798-807.
5. Migliore A, Broccoli S, Massafra U, et al. Mixed-treatment comparison of anabolic (teriparatide and PTH 1-84) therapies in women with severe osteoporosis. Current Medical Research Opinion[J]. 2012, 28(3): 467-473.
6. Lee AW. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol[J]. 2014, 67(2): 138-43.
7. Li L, Tian J, Tian H, et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol[J]. 2014.
8. Coleman CI, Phung OJ, Cappelleri JC, et al. Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews. Methods Research Report. (Prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10067-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC119-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. [J]. 2012.
9. Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, et al. Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PLoS One[J]. 2014, 9(1): e86754.
10. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, et al. Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ[J]. 2013, 347: f3675.
11. Ades A, Welton NJ, Caldwell D, et al. Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making. Journal of health services research policy[J]. 2008, 13(suppl 3): 12-22.
12. Alemayehu D, Cappelleri JC. Evaluating methodological assumptions in comparative effectiveness research: overcoming pitfalls. J Comp Eff Res[J]. 2014, 3(1): 79-93.
13. Bansal D. Comparative efficacy and safety of six antidepressants and anticonvulsants in painful diabetic neuropathy: a network meta-analysis. Pain physician[J]. 2013, 16: E705-E714.
14. Benedetto U, Raja SG, Albanese A, et al. Searching for the second best graft for coronary artery bypass surgery: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery[J]. 2014: ezu111.
15. Berlin JA, Cepeda MS. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials[J]. 2012, 9(1): 27-34.
16. Brigo F. New anti-epileptic drugs: overcoming the limits of randomised controlled trials. Int J Evid Based Healthc[J]. 2011, 9(4): 440-3.
17. Brouwers MC, Thabane L, Moher D, et al. Comparative effectiveness research paradigm: implications for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol[J]. 2012, 30(34): 4202-7.
18. Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Ades A. Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. Journal of clinical epidemiology[J]. 2010, 63(8): 875-882.
19. Carlin BP, Hong H, Shamliyan TA, et al. Case Study Comparing Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches for Multiple Treatment Comparisons. 2013.
20. Carpiuc KT, Rosti G, Castagnetti F, et al. Indirect comparisons of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in CML: case study using baseline population characteristics. Onco Targets Ther[J]. 2010, 3: 205-10.
21. Cassese S, Ndrepepa G, King LA, et al. Two zotarolimus-eluting stent generations: a meta-analysis of 12 randomised trials versus other limus-eluting stents and an adjusted indirect comparison. Heart[J]. 2012: heartjnl-2012-302519.
22. Cheng MM, Goulart B, Veenstra DL, et al. A network meta-analysis of therapies for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer treatment reviews[J]. 2012, 38(8): 1004-1011.
23. Chung H, Lumley T. Graphical exploration of network meta-analysis data: the use of multidimensional scaling. Clin Trials[J]. 2008, 5(4): 301-7.
24. Cooper NJ, Peters J, Lai MC, et al. How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation? Value in Health[J]. 2011, 14(2): 371-380.
25. Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. The Lancet[J]. 2007, 369(9557): 201-207.
26. Galván‐Banqueri M, Marin Gil R, Santos Ramos B, et al. Biological treatments for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis: indirect comparison. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics[J]. 2013, 38(2): 121-130.
27. Greco T, Landoni G, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. A Bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: how to do it. Stat Methods Med Res[J]. 2013.
28. Harenberg J, Marx S, Dahl OE, et al. Interpretation of endpoints in a network meta-analysis of new oral anticoagulants following total hip or total knee replacement surgery. Thrombosis and haemostasis[J]. 2012, 108(5): 903.
29. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health[J]. 2011, 14(4): 429-37.
30. Hong H, Carlin BP, Shamliyan TA, et al. Comparing Bayesian and frequentist approaches for multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Medical Decision Making[J]. 2013: 0272989X13481110.
31. Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC medical research methodology[J]. 2011, 11(1): 61.
32. Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, et al. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health[J]. 2008, 11(5): 956-64.
33. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health[J]. 2011, 14(4): 417-28.
34. Jones B, Roger J, Lane PW, et al. Statistical approaches for conducting network meta-analysis in drug development. Pharm Stat[J]. 2011, 10(6): 523-31.
35. Landoni G, Greco T, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Anaesthetic drugs and survival: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials in cardiac surgery. British journal of anaesthesia[J]. 2013, 111(6): 886-896.
36. Lin PY, Cheng YW, Chu CY, et al. In‐office treatment for dentin hypersensitivity: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Journal of clinical periodontology[J]. 2013, 40(1): 53-64.
37. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med[J]. 2004, 23(20): 3105-24.
38. Lu G, Ades AE, Sutton AJ, et al. Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med[J]. 2007, 26(20): 3681-99.
39. Madan J, Stevenson MD, Cooper KL, et al. Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence: is direct evidence always more reliable? Value in Health[J]. 2011, 14(6): 953-960.
40. Migliore A, Broccoli S, Massafra U, et al. Ranking antireabsorptive agents to prevent vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis by mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci[J]. 2013, 17(5): 658-67.
41. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Fleurence R, et al. Dose-comparative effects of different statins on serum lipid levels: a network meta-analysis of 256,827 individuals in 181 randomized controlled trials. European journal of preventive cardiology[J]. 2013: 2047487313483600.
42. Naci H, Ioannidis JP. Comparative effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions on mortality outcomes: metaepidemiological study. Bmj[J]. 2013, 347: f5577.
43. Nestoriuc Y, Kriston L, Rief W. Meta-analysis as the core of evidence-based behavioral medicine: tools and pitfalls of a statistical approach. Curr Opin Psychiatry[J]. 2010, 23(2): 145-50.
44. Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Clinical outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology[J]. 2013, 62(6): 496-504.
45. Rashiq S, Vandermeer B, Abou-Setta AM, et al. Efficacy of supplemental peripheral nerve blockade for hip fracture surgery: multiple treatment comparison. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie[J]. 2013, 60(3): 230-243.
46. Rotta I, Ziegelmann PK, Otuki MF, et al. Efficacy of topical antifungals in the treatment of dermatophytosis: a mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis involving 14 treatments. JAMA dermatology[J]. 2013, 149(3): 341-349.
47. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Research Synthesis Methods[J]. 2012, 3(2): 80-97.
48. Schacht A, Dyachkova Y, Walton RJ. Critical evaluation of mixed treatment comparison meta‐analyses using examples assessing antidepressants and opioid detoxification treatments. International journal of methods in psychiatric research[J]. 2013, 22(2): 166-174.
49. Schmitz S, Adams R, Walsh C. The use of continuous data versus binary data in MTC models: A case study in rheumatoid arthritis. BMC medical research methodology[J]. 2012, 12(1): 167.
50. Sciarretta S, Palano F, Tocci G, et al. Antihypertensive treatment and development of heart failure in hypertension: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of studies in patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. Archives of internal medicine[J]. 2011, 171(5): 384-394.
51. Song F. What is indirect comparison. Hayward Medical Communications[J]. 2009.
52. Song F, Clark A, Bachmann M, et al. Simulation evaluation of statistical properties of methods for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. BMC medical research methodology[J]. 2012, 12(1): 1-14.
53. Song FXTP-BSLYKSAJEAJHRCY-FGA-MDJJAD. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. Bmj[J]. 2011, 343.
54. Sundaresh V, Brito JP, Wang Z, et al. Comparative effectiveness of therapies for Graves' hyperthyroidism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology Metabolism[J]. 2013, 98(9): 3671-3677.
55. Thorlund K, Druyts E, Mills EJ, et al. Adalimumab versus infliximab for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in adult patients naive to anti-TNF therapy: an indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis. J Crohns Colitis[J]. 2014, 8(7): 571-81.
56. van der Mark LB, Lyklema PE, Geskus RB, et al. A systematic review with attempted network meta-analysis of asthma therapy recommended for five to eighteen year olds in GINA steps three and four. BMC pulmonary medicine[J]. 2012, 12(1): 63.
57. Welton N, Cooper N, Ades A, et al. Mixed treatment comparison with multiple outcomes reported inconsistently across trials: evaluation of antivirals for treatment of influenza A and B. Statistics in medicine[J]. 2008, 27(27): 5620-5639.
58. Yuan J, Zhang R, Yang Z, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. European urology[J]. 2013, 63(5): 902-912.
59. Yun H, Curtis JR. New methods for determining comparative effectiveness in RA. Current opinion in rheumatology[J]. 2013, 25(3).
60. Grant ES, Calderbank-Batista T. Network meta-analysis for complex social interventions: Problems and potential. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research[J]. 2013, 4(4): 406-420.