skip to content
Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews Preview this item
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews

Author: Craig I Coleman; United States. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.; University of Connecticut-Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center.
Publisher: Rockville, MD : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, [2012]
Series: Methods research report.; AHRQ publication, no. 12-EHC119-EF.
Edition/Format:   eBook : Document : National government publication : English
Summary:
OBJECTIVES: To summarize publically available guidance for, and current use of, meta-analytic methods for mixed treatment comparison (MTC) evidence synthesis; to identify analyses using these methods and summarize their characteristics; to gain insight regarding the rationale for selection, implementation, and reporting of such methods from investigators. METHODS: In part one, we identified currently available  Read more...
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

Subjects
More like this

Find a copy online

Links to this item

Find a copy in the library

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving; Finding libraries that hold this item...

Details

Genre/Form: Meta-Analysis
Material Type: Document, Government publication, National government publication, Internet resource
Document Type: Internet Resource, Computer File
All Authors / Contributors: Craig I Coleman; United States. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.; University of Connecticut-Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center.
OCLC Number: 820532430
Notes: "August 2012."
Description: 1 online resource (PDF file (various pagings)) : illustrations.
Series Title: Methods research report.; AHRQ publication, no. 12-EHC119-EF.
Responsibility: investigators, Craig I. Coleman [and others].

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: To summarize publically available guidance for, and current use of, meta-analytic methods for mixed treatment comparison (MTC) evidence synthesis; to identify analyses using these methods and summarize their characteristics; to gain insight regarding the rationale for selection, implementation, and reporting of such methods from investigators. METHODS: In part one, we identified currently available guidance documents addressing the use of MTC in evidence synthesis by searching governmental agencies' and participating members' of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Web sites. Commonalities and disagreements among guidance documents were summarized qualitatively. Next, in part two, a systematic literature search for MTCs was undertaken. Characteristics of included analysis were summarized qualitatively. Last, in part three, we invited a random selection of nine investigators from the systematic literature search to participate in a focus group. Using a Web-based series of questions, we queried respondents regarding their opinion of network meta-analysis and how elements of MTC methodology were chosen in their identified analysis. Responses were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Guidance documents were typically written in a fashion to be applicable to network meta-analysis in general and not to a specific methodology. Guidance documents stressed Bayesian and Frequentist MTC approaches have strengths and limitations, while only one guidance document attempted to comprehensively address how to conduct a network meta-analysis and how to interpret and report results. Our systematic review identified 42 MTCs of which the majority used Bayesian methods (80.9 percent). Bayesian analyses either used noninformative priors or did not report detail about priors used. Data regarding the evaluation of convergence, heterogeneity, and inconsistency were not consistently reported, and from those providing detail, it appears a broad range of methods were used. Due to the infrequent use of Frequentist methods for MTC and poor response rate to our focus group invitation, all respondents had conducted a MTC using Bayesian methods. Consequently, we were unable to compare/contrast the viewpoints of investigators who used these two different methods. CONCLUSION: Additional guidance on how and when to conduct a MTC, as well as how to interpret and report results is needed. Published meta-analyses using these methods varied in how they conducted and reported results.

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

Be the first.

Similar Items

Related Subjects:(3)

User lists with this item (1)

Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Linked Data


Primary Entity

<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/820532430> # Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews
    a schema:MediaObject, schema:CreativeWork, schema:Book ;
   library:oclcnum "820532430" ;
   library:placeOfPublication <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/countries/mdu> ;
   library:placeOfPublication <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Place/rockville_md> ; # Rockville, MD
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Topic/bayes_theorem> ; # Bayes Theorem
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Topic/research_design> ; # Research Design
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Topic/biomedical_research> ; # Biomedical Research
   schema:bookFormat schema:EBook ;
   schema:contributor <http://viaf.org/viaf/172868218> ; # Craig I. Coleman
   schema:contributor <http://viaf.org/viaf/172597185> ; # University of Connecticut-Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center.
   schema:contributor <http://viaf.org/viaf/129508251> ; # United States. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
   schema:datePublished "2012" ;
   schema:description "OBJECTIVES: To summarize publically available guidance for, and current use of, meta-analytic methods for mixed treatment comparison (MTC) evidence synthesis; to identify analyses using these methods and summarize their characteristics; to gain insight regarding the rationale for selection, implementation, and reporting of such methods from investigators. METHODS: In part one, we identified currently available guidance documents addressing the use of MTC in evidence synthesis by searching governmental agencies' and participating members' of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Web sites. Commonalities and disagreements among guidance documents were summarized qualitatively. Next, in part two, a systematic literature search for MTCs was undertaken. Characteristics of included analysis were summarized qualitatively. Last, in part three, we invited a random selection of nine investigators from the systematic literature search to participate in a focus group. Using a Web-based series of questions, we queried respondents regarding their opinion of network meta-analysis and how elements of MTC methodology were chosen in their identified analysis. Responses were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Guidance documents were typically written in a fashion to be applicable to network meta-analysis in general and not to a specific methodology. Guidance documents stressed Bayesian and Frequentist MTC approaches have strengths and limitations, while only one guidance document attempted to comprehensively address how to conduct a network meta-analysis and how to interpret and report results. Our systematic review identified 42 MTCs of which the majority used Bayesian methods (80.9 percent). Bayesian analyses either used noninformative priors or did not report detail about priors used. Data regarding the evaluation of convergence, heterogeneity, and inconsistency were not consistently reported, and from those providing detail, it appears a broad range of methods were used. Due to the infrequent use of Frequentist methods for MTC and poor response rate to our focus group invitation, all respondents had conducted a MTC using Bayesian methods. Consequently, we were unable to compare/contrast the viewpoints of investigators who used these two different methods. CONCLUSION: Additional guidance on how and when to conduct a MTC, as well as how to interpret and report results is needed. Published meta-analyses using these methods varied in how they conducted and reported results."@en ;
   schema:exampleOfWork <http://worldcat.org/entity/work/id/1185416479> ;
   schema:genre "Government publication"@en ;
   schema:genre "Meta-Analysis"@en ;
   schema:genre "National government publication"@en ;
   schema:inLanguage "en" ;
   schema:isPartOf <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Series/methods_research_reports> ; # Methods research reports
   schema:isPartOf <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Series/methods_research_report> ; # Methods research report.
   schema:isPartOf <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Series/ahrq_publication> ; # AHRQ publication ;
   schema:name "Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews"@en ;
   schema:productID "820532430" ;
   schema:publication <http://www.worldcat.org/title/-/oclc/820532430#PublicationEvent/rockville_md_agency_for_healthcare_research_and_quality_2012> ;
   schema:publisher <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Agent/agency_for_healthcare_research_and_quality> ; # Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
   schema:url <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK107330/> ;
   schema:url <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK107330> ;
   wdrs:describedby <http://www.worldcat.org/title/-/oclc/820532430> ;
    .


Related Entities

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Agent/agency_for_healthcare_research_and_quality> # Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    a bgn:Agent ;
   schema:name "Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Series/ahrq_publication> # AHRQ publication ;
    a bgn:PublicationSeries ;
   schema:hasPart <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/820532430> ; # Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews
   schema:name "AHRQ publication ;" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Series/methods_research_report> # Methods research report.
    a bgn:PublicationSeries ;
   schema:hasPart <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/820532430> ; # Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews
   schema:name "Methods research report." ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Series/methods_research_reports> # Methods research reports
    a bgn:PublicationSeries ;
   schema:hasPart <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/820532430> ; # Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews
   schema:name "Methods research reports" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1185416479#Topic/biomedical_research> # Biomedical Research
    a schema:Intangible ;
   schema:name "Biomedical Research"@en ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/129508251> # United States. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
    a schema:Organization ;
   schema:name "United States. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality." ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/172597185> # University of Connecticut-Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center.
    a schema:Organization ;
   schema:name "University of Connecticut-Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center." ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/172868218> # Craig I. Coleman
    a schema:Person ;
   schema:familyName "Coleman" ;
   schema:givenName "Craig I." ;
   schema:name "Craig I. Coleman" ;
    .


Content-negotiable representations

Close Window

Please sign in to WorldCat 

Don't have an account? You can easily create a free account.