Como interpretar una revisión sistemática con comparaciones múltiples o network metaanálisis

Gonzalo Labarca; Juan P. Uribe; Adnan Majid; Erik Folch; Sebastián Fernandez-Bussy

doi:10.4067/S0034-98872020001000109

Como interpretar una revisión sistemática con comparaciones múltiples o network metaanálisis

Translated title of the contribution: How to interpret systematic reviews with multiple comparisons or network meta-analysis

Gonzalo Labarca^*, Juan P. Uribe, Adnan Majid, Erik Folch, Sebastián Fernandez-Bussy

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Systematic reviews evaluating multiple interventions can be useful in different clinical situations. However, some concerns arise when more than two interventions are compared and there is a paucity of good quality randomized clinical trials. A novel statistical method based on indirect comparisons, called network meta-analysis (NMA), can be a useful approach to find a clinical answer when multiple interventions are evaluated for the same outcome or comparator. The aim of this review is to describe the main characteristics and provide a user guide for a critical analysis of NMA focusing on its three main domains, namely homogeneity, transitivity and consistency.

Translated title of the contribution	How to interpret systematic reviews with multiple comparisons or network meta-analysis
Original language	Spanish
Pages (from-to)	109-117
Number of pages	9
Journal	Revista Medica de Chile
Volume	148
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872020001000109
State	Published - 2020

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Sociedad Medica de Santiago. All rights reserved.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Medicine

Access to Document

10.4067/S0034-98872020001000109

Cite this

@article{e9068b22f8ec4a98899be11de9bb35fd,

title = "Como interpretar una revisi{\'o}n sistem{\'a}tica con comparaciones m{\'u}ltiples o network metaan{\'a}lisis",

abstract = "Systematic reviews evaluating multiple interventions can be useful in different clinical situations. However, some concerns arise when more than two interventions are compared and there is a paucity of good quality randomized clinical trials. A novel statistical method based on indirect comparisons, called network meta-analysis (NMA), can be a useful approach to find a clinical answer when multiple interventions are evaluated for the same outcome or comparator. The aim of this review is to describe the main characteristics and provide a user guide for a critical analysis of NMA focusing on its three main domains, namely homogeneity, transitivity and consistency.",

keywords = "Evidence-Based Medicine, Meta-Analysis, Methods, Network Meta-Analysis",

author = "Gonzalo Labarca and Uribe, {Juan P.} and Adnan Majid and Erik Folch and Sebasti{\'a}n Fernandez-Bussy",

year = "2020",

month = jan,

doi = "10.4067/S0034-98872020001000109",

language = "Spanish",

volume = "148",

pages = "109--117",

journal = "Revista Medica de Chile",

issn = "0034-9887",

publisher = "Sociedad Medica de Santiago",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Como interpretar una revisión sistemática con comparaciones múltiples o network metaanálisis

AU - Labarca, Gonzalo

AU - Uribe, Juan P.

AU - Majid, Adnan

AU - Folch, Erik

AU - Fernandez-Bussy, Sebastián

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - Systematic reviews evaluating multiple interventions can be useful in different clinical situations. However, some concerns arise when more than two interventions are compared and there is a paucity of good quality randomized clinical trials. A novel statistical method based on indirect comparisons, called network meta-analysis (NMA), can be a useful approach to find a clinical answer when multiple interventions are evaluated for the same outcome or comparator. The aim of this review is to describe the main characteristics and provide a user guide for a critical analysis of NMA focusing on its three main domains, namely homogeneity, transitivity and consistency.

AB - Systematic reviews evaluating multiple interventions can be useful in different clinical situations. However, some concerns arise when more than two interventions are compared and there is a paucity of good quality randomized clinical trials. A novel statistical method based on indirect comparisons, called network meta-analysis (NMA), can be a useful approach to find a clinical answer when multiple interventions are evaluated for the same outcome or comparator. The aim of this review is to describe the main characteristics and provide a user guide for a critical analysis of NMA focusing on its three main domains, namely homogeneity, transitivity and consistency.

KW - Evidence-Based Medicine

KW - Meta-Analysis

KW - Methods

KW - Network Meta-Analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083322873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4067/S0034-98872020001000109

DO - 10.4067/S0034-98872020001000109

M3 - Article

C2 - 32730443

AN - SCOPUS:85083322873

SN - 0034-9887

VL - 148

SP - 109

EP - 117

JO - Revista Medica de Chile

JF - Revista Medica de Chile

IS - 1

ER -

Como interpretar una revisión sistemática con comparaciones múltiples o network metaanálisis

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this