Dataset Information

Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study.

ABSTRACT: To examine whether the continuous updating of networks of prospectively planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs) ("living" network meta-analysis) provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis in comparative effectiveness of medical interventions earlier than the updating of conventional, pairwise meta-analysis.Empirical study of the accumulating evidence about the comparative effectiveness of clinical interventions.Database of network meta-analyses of RCTs identified through searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until 14 April 2015.Network meta-analyses published after January 2012 that compared at least five treatments and included at least 20 RCTs. Clinical experts were asked to identify in each network the treatment comparison of greatest clinical interest. Comparisons were excluded for which direct and indirect evidence disagreed, based on side, or node, splitting test (P<0.10).Cumulative pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed for each selected comparison. Monitoring boundaries of statistical significance were constructed and the evidence against the null hypothesis was considered to be strong when the monitoring boundaries were crossed. A significance level was defined as ?=5%, power of 90% (?=10%), and an anticipated treatment effect to detect equal to the final estimate from the network meta-analysis. The frequency and time to strong evidence was compared against the null hypothesis between pairwise and network meta-analyses.49 comparisons of interest from 44 networks were included; most (n=39, 80%) were between active drugs, mainly from the specialties of cardiology, endocrinology, psychiatry, and rheumatology. 29 comparisons were informed by both direct and indirect evidence (59%), 13 by indirect evidence (27%), and 7 by direct evidence (14%). Both network and pairwise meta-analysis provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis for seven comparisons, but for an additional 10 comparisons only network meta-analysis provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis (P=0.002). The median time to strong evidence against the null hypothesis was 19 years with living network meta-analysis and 23 years with living pairwise meta-analysis (hazard ratio 2.78, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 7.72, P=0.05). Studies directly comparing the treatments of interest continued to be published for eight comparisons after strong evidence had become evident in network meta-analysis.In comparative effectiveness research, prospectively planned living network meta-analyses produced strong evidence against the null hypothesis more often and earlier than conventional, pairwise meta-analyses.

SUBMITTER: Nikolakopoulou A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5829520 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study.

Nikolakopoulou Adriani A Mavridis Dimitris D Furukawa Toshi A TA Cipriani Andrea A Tricco Andrea C AC Straus Sharon E SE Siontis George C M GCM Egger Matthias M Salanti Georgia G

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20180228

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether the continuous updating of networks of prospectively planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs) ("living" network meta-analysis) provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis in comparative effectiveness of medical interventions earlier than the updating of conventional, pairwise meta-analysis.<h4>Design</h4>Empirical study of the accumulating evidence about the comparative effectiveness of clinical interventions.<h4>Data sources</h4>Database of netwo ...[more]

PMID: 29490922

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe $1.1 billion investment in comparative effectiveness research will reshape the evidence-base supporting decisions about treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost. Defining the current prevalence and characteristics of comparative effectiveness (CE) research will enable future assessments of the impact of this program.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of clinical trials addressing priority research topics defined by the Institute of Medicine and conducted in the US between 2007 and 2010. Trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of comparative effectiveness research, nature of comparators selected, funding sources, and impact of these factors on results.Results231 (22.3%; 95% CI 19.8%-24.9%) studies were CE studies and 804 (77.7%; 95% CI, 75.1%-80.2%) were non-CE studies, with 379 (36.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-39.6%) employing a placebo control and 425 (41.1%; 95% CI, 38.1%-44.1%) no control. The most common treatments examined in CE studies were drug interventions (37.2%), behavioral interventions (28.6%), and procedures (15.6%). Study findings were favorable for the experimental treatment in 34.8% of CE studies and greater than twice as many (78.6%) non-CE studies (P<0.001). CE studies were more likely to receive government funding (P?=?0.003) and less likely to receive industry funding (P?=?0.01), with 71.8% of CE studies primarily funded by a noncommercial source. The types of interventions studied differed based on funding source, with 95.4% of industry trials studying a drug or device. In addition, industry-funded CE studies were associated with the fewest pediatric subjects (P<0.001), the largest anticipated sample size (P<0.001), and the shortest study duration (P<0.001).ConclusionsIn this sample of studies examining high priority areas for CE research, less than a quarter are CE studies and the majority is supported by government and nonprofits. The low prevalence of CE research exists across CE studies with a broad array of interventions and characteristics.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Aerosolized antibiotics have been proposed as a novel and promising treatment option for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). However, the optimum aerosolized antibiotics for VAP remain uncertain. METHODS:We included studies from two systematic reviews and searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for other studies. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Extracted data were analyzed by pairwise and network meta-analysis. RESULTS:Eight observational and eight randomized studies were identified for this analysis. By pairwise meta-analysis using intravenous antibiotics as the reference, patients treated with aerosolized antibiotics were associated with significantly higher rates of clinical recovery (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.34; P?=?0.001) and microbiological eradication (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22-1.650; P?<?0.0001). There were no significant differences in the risks of mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.04; P?=?0.127) or nephrotoxicity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72-1.39; P?=?0.995). Using network meta-analysis, clinical recovery benefits were seen only with aerosolized tobramycin and colistin (especially tobramycin), and microbiological eradication benefits were seen only with colistin. Aerosolized tobramycin was also associated with significantly lower mortality when compared with aerosolized amikacin and colistin and intravenous antibiotics. The assessment of rank probabilities indicated aerosolized tobramycin presented the greatest likelihood of having benefits for clinical recovery and mortality, and aerosolized colistin presented the best benefits for microbiological eradication. CONCLUSIONS:Aerosolized antibiotics appear to be a useful treatment for VAP with respect to clinical recovery and microbiological eradication, and do not increase mortality or nephrotoxicity risks. Our network meta-analysis in patients with VAP suggests that clinical recovery benefits are associated with aerosolized tobramycin and colistin (especially tobramycin), microbiological eradication with aerosolized colistin, and survival with aerosolized tobramycin, mostly based on observational studies. Due to the low levels of evidence, definitive recommendations cannot be made before additional, large randomized studies are carried out.

Dataset Information

Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study.

Publications

Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets