ADDIS: an automated way to do network meta-analysis
AbstractIn evidence-based medicine, meta-analysis is an important statistical technique for combining the findings from independent clinical trials which have attempted to answer similar questions about treatment's clinical e ectiveness . Normally, such meta-analyses are pair-wise treatment comparisons, which only include the comparisons between two treatments, e.g. treatment A and placebo. When additional treatments are of interest (e.g. treatment B and treatment C), pair-wise treatment comparison starts showing its limitations as it only accesses the evidence from direct comparisons between two treatments and can not guarantee consistency between comparisons. Network meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining both direct and indirect evidence from multiple trials in order to obtain a single consistent quantitative synthesis [2, 3, 4]. It enables to detect the heterogeneity among di erent trials comparing the same treatments and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Compared to pair-wise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis is rather difficult to conduct due to the need for analyzing inconsistency, specifying the model, assessing convergence, etc. The purpose of this report is to introduce an automated way to perform network meta-analysis through ADDIS (Aggregate Data Drug Information System).
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management) in its series Research Report with number 12007-0ther.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-08-23 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Lu, Guobing & Ades, A.E., 2006. "Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 447-459, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joke Bulthuis).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.