Network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis: what is it and why is it posed to dominate cardiovascular decision making?

A Bayesian network meta-analysis of ALK inhibitor treatments in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

To date, no direct comparisons have compared the effectiveness of all ALK inhibitors (ALKis) against ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of ALKis in ALK-positive NSCLC.

METHODS

The effectiveness of ALKis was evaluated by assessing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and PFS with baseline brain metastasis (BM). The serious adverse events (SAEs: Grade ≥ 3) and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were pooled to evaluate safety. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison between all ALKis by using a Bayesian model.

RESULTS

Twelve eligible trials including seven treatments were identified. All of the ALKis improved PFS and ORR relative to chemotherapy. Consistent with alectinib, brigatinib, lorlatinib, and ensartinib showed significant differences versus crizotinib and ceritinib. Lorlatinib seemed to prolong PFS compared with alectinib (0.64, 0.37 to 1.07), brigatinib (0.56, 0.3 to 1.05), and ensartinib (0.53, 0.28 to 1.02). No significant difference was found among them in OS except for alectinib versus crizotinib. Moreover, alectinib was significantly more effective than crizotinib (1.54, 1.02 to 2.5) in achieving the best ORR. Subgroup analyses based on BM indicated that PFS was dramatically lengthened by lorlatinib. Compared with other ALKis, alectinib notably reduced the rate of SAEs. There was no striking difference between discontinuation for AEs, except for ceritinib versus crizotinib. The ranking of validity showed that lorlatinib had the longest PFS (98.32%) and PFS with BM (85.84%) and the highest ORR (77.01%). The rank of probabilities showed that alectinib had the potentially best safety in terms of SAEs (97.85%), and ceritinib had less discontinuation (95.45%).

CONCLUSION

Alectinib was the first choice for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC and even for those with BM, whereas lorlatinib was the second choice. Long-term follow-up and prospective studies are warranted to compare ALKis and to verify our conclusions directly.

Mapping the characteristics, methodological quality and standards of reporting of network meta-analyses on antithrombotic therapies: An overview

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in the field of cardiology are available, little is known about their methodological quality. We aimed to map the characteristics and critically appraised the standards of conduct and evidence reporting of NMAs assessing antithrombotic therapies for the treatment or prophylaxis of heart diseases and cardiac surgical procedures.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and Scopus to identify NMAs comparing the clinical effects of antithrombotic therapies. Overall characteristics of the NMAs were extracted and their reporting quality and methodological quality were evaluated using the PRISMA-NMA checklist and AMSTAR-2, respectively.

RESULTS

We found 86 NMAs published between 2007 and 2022. Comparisons among direct-acting oral anticoagulants were available in 61 (71%) NMAs. Although around 75% of NMAs stated that they followed international guidelines for conduct and reporting, only one third provided a protocol/register. Complete search strategies and publication bias assessment were lacking in around 53% and 59% of studies, respectively. Most NMAs (n = 77, 90%) provided supplemental material; however, only 5 (6%) made the complete raw data available. Network diagrams were depicted in most studies (n = 67, 78%), yet network geometry was described in only 11 (12.8%) of them. Mean adherence to the PRISMA-NMA checklist was 65.1 ± 16.5%. AMSTAR-2 assessment showed 88% of the NMAs had critically low methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a wide diffusion of NMA-type studies on antithrombotics for heart diseases, their methodological and reporting quality remains suboptimal. This may reflect fragile clinical practices due to misleading conclusions from critically low-quality NMAs.

Effectiveness and complication of achalasia treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Achalasia(AC) is an esophageal motility disorder characterized by decreased esophageal motility and impaired relaxation of lower esophageal sphincter(LES). The treatment of achalasia is continuously improved for the development of technology, but each treatment has its own advantages and disadvantages. This article was to compare the efficacy and complication of different treatment on AC. PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. A random-effects model within a Bayesian framework was applied to compare treatment effects as odds ratio (OR) with their corresponding 95% credible interval (CI), also OR was applied to compare complication with 95% CI. The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) was calculated to make the ranking of the treatments for outcomes. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible. According to SUCRA ranking, anterior peroral endoscopic myotomy (APOEM) (SUCRA = 84.6%) might have the highest probability to be the best treatment for dysphagia remission in AC patients, followed by POEM (SUCRA = 78.4%). For gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) assessment, the corresponding SUCRA values indicated that botulinum toxin(BT) (SUCRA = 18.3%) might have lowest GERD incidence rate and POEM ranked the worst (SUCRA = 69.8%).. APOEM might have the highest probability to be the best therapeutic strategy for dysphagia remission in a short-term of follow-up, but the GERD incidence rate was high. BT injection might have the lowest probability to treat dysphagia, but the risk of GERD was the lowest. In the future, more RCTs with higher qualities are needed to make head-to-head comparison between 2 or more treatments.

Treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) or dysthymic disorder (DD) in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although various treatments exist for depression in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), the comparative effects and relationships between these treatments have not been clearly presented. This study aims to present comprehensive evidence for the treatment of major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder in patients with SCI by comparing the therapeutic and adverse effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for studies in five databases (Medline, Central, Embase, PsycINFO and CHINAL) as well as clinical trial registries (US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/trialsearch)) and grey literature (Google Scholar). The references of the included studies, previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be reviewed. Study selection, data extraction and quality and risk of bias assessments will be independently performed by two authors (JMH and WSC), and disagreements will be resolved by discussion with JHK. Moreover, a Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed using R software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our systematic review and network meta-analysis will be performed based on existing studies; thus, we did not seek ethical approval. Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at both domestic and international conferences.

Acceptability of Drugs in the Treatment of Unresectable/Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Although many novel regimens have entered the treatment paradigm for unresectable/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, there is still a lack of head-to-head comparison in terms of security. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) across different treatments and to provide an acceptability ranking for patients.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, PubMed, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinical Trials.gov with a time frame from database inception to December 24, 2021. We retrieved evidence on the cumulative incidence of any-grade AEs means grades 1-5 AEs (regardless of severity) and severe AEs based on the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrI).

Results

Twelve publications and thirteen treatments enrolling 5,803 patients were included. For any-grade AEs, the acceptability of combined dabrafenib and trametinib is superior to the combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (RR: 0.94; Crl: 0.89, 0.98). Furthermore, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab increases any-grade AEs than single-agent ipilimumab (RR: 0.90; Crl: 0.83, 0.96) or nivolumab (RR: 0.90; Crl: 0.84, 0.97). For severe AEs, dabrafenib has the best acceptability than single-agent vemurafenib (RR: 0.66; Crl: 0.50, 0.87) or encorafenib (RR: 0.64; Crl: 0.43, 0.94). In addition, ipilimumab (SUCRA: 0.87) ranks first in the acceptability for any-grade AEs, and nivolumab (SUCRA: 0.95) ranks first in the acceptability for severe AEs. The ranking of the combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (SUCRA: 0.66) is superior to encorafenib in combination with binimetinib (SUCRA: 0.39) and combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (SUCRA: 0.18).

Conclusions

We identified the lowest AE risk treatment options for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma patients. In general, immunotherapy (ipilimumab or nivolumab) has better acceptability than most targeted therapies, and triplet therapies are related with the worst acceptability. Moreover, single-agent dabrafenib can be used as the first choice in monotherapy, and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib is the preferred combination therapy. Overall, the combination of immunotherapy drugs increases any-grade and severe AEs than a single agent, whereas the condition of targeted therapy drugs cannot be simply generalized. Therefore, this information can facilitate evidence-based decision-making and support optimizing treatment and outcomes in clinical practice.

Network Analysis of Endovascular Treatment Strategies for Femoropopliteal Arterial Occlusive Disease

PURPOSE

Endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal arterial diseases remains controversial. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aiming to investigate the efficacy differences between paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, covered stents, drug-coated balloons, bare metal stents, and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and other relevant online material were searched up to October 21, 2020. Primary endpoints were primary patency and target lesion revascularization at 6, 12, and more than 24 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight eligible trials included 6026 patients. In terms of primary patency, drug eluting stents were ranked as the most effective treatment based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values at 6 (80.6), 12 (78.4), and more than 24 months (96.5) of follow-ups. In terms of target lesion revascularization, drug eluting stents were ranked as the most effective treatment based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values at 6 (90.3), 12 (71.3), and more than 24 months (82.1) of follow-ups. Covered stents and bare metal stents had higher ranks in target lesion revascularization than those in primary patency. Sirolimus stents had a higher rank than paclitaxel stents.

CONCLUSION

Drug eluting stents showed encouraging results in primary patency rates and freedom from target lesion revascularization at all phases of follow-up for femoropopliteal arterial diseases. Sirolimus stents appear to be more effective in femoropopliteal segment than paclitaxel stent.

Current Therapies in Patients With Posterior Semicircular Canal BPPV, a Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of different treatments for posterior semicircular canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (PC-BPPV) by using direct and indirect evidence from existing randomized data.

METHODS

Randomized case-control studies that compared the efficacy of various nonsurgical treatments in PC-BPPV patients at 1 week and 1 month of follow-up were comprehensively screened. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate direct and indirect treatment comparisons. We further conducted subgroup pairwise meta-analysis to explore the inconsistency between comparisons of the Epley versus a sham maneuver and the Epley versus the Semont maneuver.

RESULTS

A total of 41 parallel, randomized controlled studies were included. The Epley with vestibular rehabilitation (EVR), Epley, Semont and Hybrid maneuvers were effective in eliminating nystagmus during a Dix-Hallpike test at 1 week of follow-up (odds ratios [ORs]: 11.41-23.8, 95% credible interval [CrI]: excluding null), among which EVR showed the best efficacy (the surface area under the cumulative ranking curves [SUCRA] = 77.5%). However, at 1 month of follow-up, only the Semont (rank first, SUCRA = 76.1%) and Epley maneuvers (rank second, SUCRA = 65.3%) were effective in eliminating nystagmus during a Dix-Hallpike test. In the pairwise subgroup meta-analysis, for patients younger than 55 years of age, the efficacy of the Epley maneuver was comparable to that of the Semont maneuver [rate ratio (RR): 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.05]; for patients with a longer duration before treatment, the effect of the Epley maneuver was equivalent to that of a sham maneuver (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.90-1.29).

CONCLUSION

Among the 12 types of PC-BPPV treatments, the Epley, Semont, EVR, and Hybrid maneuvers were effective in eliminating nystagmus during a Dix-Hallpike test for PC-BPPV at 1 week of follow-up, whereas only the Epley and Semont maneuvers were effective at 1 month of follow-up. The duration before treatments and the age of patients might contribute to the efficacy of treatments.

Effect of Acupuncture on Movement Function in Patients with Parkinson's Disease: Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of some different acupuncture modalities on motor function using the unified Parkinson disease rating scale (UPDRS)-III scores of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD) via pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs. A frequentist approach-based random effect model NMA was performed. Seventeen RCTs with 1071 participants were included. The five following modalities were identified: combination of conventional medication (levodopa) with (1) electroacupuncture (ELEC), (2) manual acupuncture (MANU), (3) bee venom acupuncture (BEEV), (4) sham acupuncture (SHAM), and (5) conventional medication alone (CONV). In NMA on UPDRS-III, BEEV was the best modality compared to CONV (mean difference [MD]) −7.37, 95% confidence interval [−11.97, −2.77]). The comparative ranking assessed through NMA was suggested to be BEEV, MANU, ELEC, SHAM, and CONV. Regarding daily activity assessment (UPDRS-II), the magnitude of effectiveness was in the order of BEEV, ELEC, MANU, SHAM, and CONV. Combination treatment with BEEV (MANU or ELEC) and CONV can be recommended to improve motor function in PD patients. Due to the limited number of included RCTs, further NMA with more rigorous RCTs are warranted.

Aortic valve neocuspidization with autologous pericardium in adult patients: UK experience and meta-analytic comparison with other aortic valve substitutes

OBJECTIVES

We sought to provide further evidence on the safety and efficacy of aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) using autologous pericardium in adult patients with aortic valve disease by reporting clinical and echocardiographic results from the first UK experience and performing a meta-analytic comparison with other biological valve substitutes.

METHODS

We reported clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of 55 patients (mean age 58 ± 15 years) undergoing AVNeo with autologous pericardium in 2 UK centres from 2018 to 2020. These results were included in a meta-analytic comparison between series on AVNeo (7 studies, 1205 patients, mean weighted follow-up 3.6 years) versus Trifecta (10 studies, 8705 patients, 3.8 years), Magna Ease (3 studies, 3137 patients, 4.1 years), Freedom Solo (4 studies, 1869 patients, 4.4 years), Freestyle (4 studies, 4307 patients, 7 years), Mitroflow (4 studies, 4760 patients, 4.1 years) and autograft aortic valve (7 papers, 3839 patients, 9.1 years).

RESULTS

In the present series no patients required intraoperative conversion. After mean follow-up of 12.5 ± 0.9 months, 3 patients presented with endocarditis and 1 required reintervention. The remaining patients had absent or mild aortic valve insufficiency with very low peak and mean transvalvular gradients (16 ± 3.7 and 9 ± 2.2 mmHg, respectively). Meta-analytic estimates showed non-significant difference between AVNeo and all but Magna Ease valves with regards to structural valve degeneration, reintervention and endocarditis. When compared Magna Ease valve, AVNeo and other valve substitutes showed an excess of valve-related events.

CONCLUSIONS

AVNeo is safe, associated with excellent haemodynamic profile. Its midterm risk of valve-related events is comparable to most biological valve substitutes. Magna Ease is potentially the best biological choice as far as risk of reintervention is concerned.

Role of Blood Pressure Management in Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of 93 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Purpose

The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of different blood pressure (BP)-lowering strategies.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials that compared various antihypertensive treatments and stroke outcomes were included. Eligible trials were categorized into three scenarios: single or combination antihypertensive agents against placebos; single or combination agents against other agents; and different BP-lowering targets. The primary efficacy outcome was the risk reduction pertaining to strokes. The tolerability outcome was the withdrawal of drugs, owing to drug-related side effects (PROSPERO registration number CRD42018118454 [20/12/2018]).

Results

The present study included 93 trials (average follow-up duration, 3.3 years). In the pairwise analysis, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and beta-blockers (BBs) were inferior to calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (odds ratio [OR], 1.123; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.008 to 1.252) (OR, 1.261; 95% CI, 1.116 to 1.425) for stroke prevention, BB was inferior to angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) (OR, 1.361; 95% CI, 1.142 to 1.622), and diuretics were superior to ACEi (OR, 0.871; 95% CI, 0.771 to 0.984). The combination of ACEi+CCB was superior to ACEi+diuretic (OR, 0.892; 95% CI, 0.823 to 0.966). The network meta-analysis confirmed that diuretics were superior to BB (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.58), ACEi+diuretic (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.08), BB+CCB (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.05 to 3.79), and renin inhibitors (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.75) for stroke prevention. Regarding the tolerability profile, the pairwise analysis revealed that ACEi was inferior to CCB and less tolerable, compared to the other treatments.

Conclusions

Monotherapy using diuretics, CCB, or ARB, and their combinations could be employed as first-line treatments for stroke prevention in terms of efficacy and tolerability.

Efficacy of Non-pharmacologic Auxiliary Treatments in Improving Defecation Function in Children With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Background: Non-pharmacologic auxiliary treatments have been considered crucial therapies for treating chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) during the past decades worldwide. Several treatment patterns are available, but their relative efficacy is obscure because there are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials, especially in children. We conducted this network meta-analysis to evalute the effectiveness of these therapies in improving defecation function based on their direct comparisons with standard medical care. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from inception to October 2020, assessing the efficacy of auxiliary therapies (behavior therapy, physiotherapy, biofeedback, or anorectal manometry) in children with CIC. We extracted data for endpoints, risk of bias, and evidence quality. Eligible studies in the meta-analysis reported the data of a dichotomous assessment of overall response to treatment (response or not) or defecation frequency per week after treatment. The hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was used in the study. We chose a conservative methodology, random effects model, to pool data which could handle the heterogeneity well. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous results, weighted mean difference (WMD) with related CIs was calculated. The included treatments were ranked to define the probability of being the best treatment. Results: Seven RCTs (838 patients) met inclusion and endpoint criteria. Based on an endpoint of the absence of constipation (Rome criteria) with laxatives allowed, physiotherapy plus standard medical care (SMC) had the highest probability (84%) to bethe most effective therapy. When the treatment response was defined as an absence of constipation with not laxatives allowed, biofeedback plus SMC ranked first (probability 52%). Physiotherapy plus SMC ranked first when the endpoint was based on defecation frequency per week with laxatives allowed (probability 86%). Conclusion: Almost all auxiliary therapies are effective complementary therapies for treating CIC, but they needed to be used simultaneously with SMC. Nevertheless, because of the small number of eligible studies and their small sample sizes, the differences in treatment duration and the endpoints, large sample RCTs with long-term follow-up are required for further investigation.

Comparative effects on pain arising from injury to the knee meniscus in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify the most effective pain management method for meniscus injuries by comparing pain relief observed with several common interventions including combined different combinations of surgery and exercise, surgery alone, supervised exercise alone and home exercise alone.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SportDiscus, and PEDro were searched from database inception through October 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of surgery and exercise for meniscus injuries by using the visual analogue scale (VAS) assessment were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome was mean change in VAS score from baseline. Comparisons between interventions were made through use of random-effects network meta-analysis over the short-term (three months) and mid-term (12 months). Relative ranking of therapies was assessed by the surface-under-the-cumulative ranking possibilities. All reference lists of included studies were hand-searched.

RESULTS

We investigated six RCTs (total n = 796 patients). No significant difference was found between different treatments of pain control in three months and 12 months. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves suggested that supervised exercise combined with surgery was considered most likely to overshadow other treatments in reducing short-term pain (surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values: 98.1; mean ranks: 1.1) and mid-term pain (SUCRA values: 97.2; mean rank: 1.1).

CONCLUSION

There is not sufficient evidence to identify any preferred or more effective surgical and/or exercise-based treatment program.

Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conventional paired meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results regarding the safety and efficacy of different interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacies of different interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites from inception to October 10, 2019, for randomized controlled trials comparing the nine most commonly used interventions for LSS. The main outcomes were disability and pain intensity. The PROSPERO number was CRD42020154247.

RESULTS

First, laminotomy was better in improving patients' short- and long-term dysfunction (probability 49% and 25%, respectively). Second, decompression, decompression plus fusion, endoscopic decompression, interspinous process spacer device implantation, laminectomy, laminotomy and minimally invasive decompression were significantly more efficacious in relieving pain than non-surgical interventions (mean difference in the short-term -21.82, -22.00, -16.68, -17.47, -17.75, -17.61 and -18.86; in the long-term -37.14, -34.04, -34.07, -39.79, -36.14, -32.75 and -39.14, respectively). Third, endoscopic decompression had a lower complication rate (probability 51%). In addition, laminotomy had a lower reoperation rate (probability 45%). Fourth, decompression plus fusion resulted in more blood loss than any other surgical intervention (probability 96%). Finally, endoscopic decompression had the shortest hospitalization time (probability 96%).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences among the different interventions in improving patient function. Surgical interventions were associated with better pain relief but a higher incidence of complications. Decompression plus fusion is not necessary for patients. In addition, endoscopic decompression as a novel and less invasive surgical approach may be a good choice for LSS patients.

The synthesis of scientific shreds of evidence: a critical appraisal on systematic review and meta-analysis methodology

Synthesising results across studies to recognise the causes of variation in outcomes and to reach an overall understanding of a problem is a crucial part of the scientific method. Until in recent times, the results of scientific findings have been summarised in narrative reviews where the summary of transparent and objective results have become increasingly difficult. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, conducted by subsequent strict protocols to guarantee reproducibility and decrease bias, have become more common in the synthesis of evidence.

Evaluation and ranking of different interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To identify the highest-ranked pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy.

METHODS

We conducted an online bibliographic search in different databases from inception till July 2019. We included randomized controlled trials assessing effect of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions on pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy. Our main outcomes were pain scores at different endpoints of the procedure. We applied this network meta-analysis based on the frequentist approach using statistical package 'netmeta' (version 1.0-1) in R.

RESULTS

The review included 39 randomized controlled trials (Women n = 3964). Misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = -3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.06, -0.59]), misoprostol (MD = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.04, -0.81]) and IV analgesia (MD = -2.01, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.25]) were effective in reducing pain during the procedure compared to placebo. Ranking probability showed that misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia was the highest ranked pharmacological treatment for pain relief during the procedure (P score = 0.92) followed by misoprostol alone (P score = 0.78), and IV analgesia (P score = 0.76). Regarding nonpharmacological treatments, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed a significant pain reduction compared to placebo (MD = -1.80, 95% CI [-3.31, -0.29]). TENS ranked as the best nonpharmacological treatment (P score = 0.80) followed by CO₂ distention (P score = 0.65) and bladder distention (P score = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

Combination of misoprostol plus local anesthesia appears to be the most effective pharmacological approach for pain reduction during and after outpatient hysteroscopy. Nonpharmacological approaches as TENS and bladder distention showed considerable efficacy but should be further investigated.

Blood pressure lowering and stroke prevention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol

Background

Hypertension is a leading cause of stroke and the significance of blood pressure lowering treatment strategies for prevention of stroke has been well established. Despite the established and widespread use of BP lowering drugs, which one is better for stroke prevention is still debated. This study aimed to determine the most effective and safest blood pressure lowering treatments for stroke prevention among various single and combined therapies.

Methods

A systematic search will be performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs and meta analyses of different pharmacological interventions for stroke prevention from January 01, 1966 to December 01, 2018. Primary efficacy outcome will be reduction of stroke incidence and safety outcome will be drug-related side effects withdraw. Study quality will be critically appraised based on the seven-point tool for assessing risk of bias by Cochrane collaboration. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed for all related outcome measures. We will conduct subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings.

Discussion

This network meta-analysis will summarize the direct and indirect evidence aiming to provide a ranking of various blood pressure lowering strategies for prevention of stroke. The results of this meta-analysis may help the physicians in determining the best treatments for their patients in stroke prevention.

Trial registration

CRD42018118454.

Comparative efficacy of interventions for reducing injection and sexual risk behaviours to prevent HIV in injection drug users: protocol for Bayesian network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Drug users are more vulnerable to AIDS than the general population. While several interventions are effective for addressing HIV in injection drug users, no meta-analysis has yet been performed to compare interventions and determine the relative benefits of each. We intend to conduct a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare all available interventions evaluated by a randomised controlled trial for reducing injection and risky sexual behaviours for the prevention of HIV in injection drug users.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Studies will be retrieved by searching the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search will be performed between May and July 2018 for the literature published between 1980 and May 2018. Two authors will extract data independently. Primary outcome measures will be injection risk behaviour and HIV risk behaviour. HIV seroconversion, confirmed using an antibody test, will be the secondary outcome. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted using the Markov Chains Monte Carlo method. The Cochrane revised tool, Risk of Bias, will be used to assess the risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess evidence quality.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results of this study will be disseminated at professional conferences and via publications in peer-reviewed journals. This study will not include any confidential personal data or data on human trials; therefore, ethical approval is not required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018086999.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To perform a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on fracture risk in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed/Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2018 to identify RCTs reporting fracture events with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors compared to control group in patients with T2DM. NMA within a Bayesian framework was performed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using random effect model. Node splitting method was applied to evaluate the presence of inconsistency for NMA.

RESULTS

A total of 40 RCTs including 32,343 T2DM patients with 466 fracture cases. Pairwise meta-analysis showed no association between risk of fracture and SGLT2 inhibitors use (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.83-1.23; p = 0.91; I² = 27%) compared with the control group. The NMA has shown a non-significant association with fracture risk and canagliflozin (OR = 0.57, 95%CrI 0.12-1.90), dapagliflozin (OR = 0.58, 95%CrI 0.13-2.00), and empagliflozin (OR = 0.78, 95%CrI 0.23-2.80) use when compared to placebo. No association was also found among SGLT-2 inhibitors (canagliflozin OR = 2.6, 95%CrI 0.69-16.00; dapagliflozin OR = 2.6, 95%CrI 0.52-22.00; and empagliflozin OR = 3.7, 95% CrI 1.0-27.00), when compared to active treatment. Node-splitting analysis shows non-significant inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The current NMA result suggests no detrimental effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on fracture risk in patients with T2DM. Further RCTs and real-world studies with long-term follow up are required to confirm the present findings.

Comparative effectiveness of physical activity interventions and anti-hypertensive pharmacological interventions in reducing blood pressure in people with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of hypertension is a major public health challenge. Despite it being highly preventable, hypertension is responsible for a significant proportion of global morbidity and mortality. Common methods for controlling hypertension include prescribing anti-hypertensive medication, a pharmacological approach, and increasing physical activity, a behavioural approach. In general, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological and behavioural approaches for reducing blood pressure in hypertension. A previous network meta-analysis suggested that physical activity interventions may be just as effective as many anti-hypertensive medications in preventing mortality; however, this analysis did not provide the comparative effectiveness of these disparate modes of intervention on blood pressure reduction. The primary objective of this study is to use network meta-analysis to compare the relative effectiveness, for blood pressure reduction, of different approaches to increasing physical activity and different first-line anti-hypertensive therapies in people with hypertension.

METHODS

A systematic review will be conducted to identify studies involving randomised controlled trials which compare different types of physical activity interventions and first-line anti-hypertensive therapy interventions to each other or to other comparators (e.g. placebo, usual care) where blood pressure reduction is the primary outcome. We will search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. For studies which meet our inclusion criteria, two reviewers will extract data independently and assess the quality of the literature using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Network meta-analyses will be conducted to generate estimates of comparative effectiveness of each intervention class and rankings of their effectiveness, in terms of reduction of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence regarding the comparability of two common first-line treatment options for people with hypertension. It will also describe the extent to which there is direct evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of increasing physical activity and initiating anti-hypertensive therapy.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017070579.

Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata

This review aimed to arrange the concepts of a network meta-analysis (NMA) and to demonstrate the analytical process of NMA using Stata software under frequentist framework. The NMA tries to synthesize evidences for a decision making by evaluating the comparative effectiveness of more than two alternative interventions for the same condition. Before conducting a NMA, 3 major assumptions—similarity, transitivity, and consistency—should be checked. The statistical analysis consists of 5 steps. The first step is to draw a network geometry to provide an overview of the network relationship. The second step checks the assumption of consistency. The third step is to make the network forest plot or interval plot in order to illustrate the summary size of comparative effectiveness among various interventions. The fourth step calculates cumulative rankings for identifying superiority among interventions. The last step evaluates publication bias or effect modifiers for a valid inference from results. The synthesized evidences through five steps would be very useful to evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. Thus, NMA should be activated in order to guarantee the quality of healthcare system.

What We Learned with Recent Network Meta-analyses on Atherosclerosis Prevention and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management of atherosclerosis requires a complex integration of the knowledge on its pathophysiology, patient values, and the synthesis of the global scientific evidence informing on its prevention and treatment. Novel statistical methods such as umbrella reviews and network meta-analyses (NMAs) offer a unique opportunity for integrating different sources of evidence stemming from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or internally valid observational studies. We aimed to provide an updated perspective on the most important contributions of recent network meta-analyses on atherosclerosis prevention and treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified and appraised in detail 9 NMAs on atherosclerosis prevention, all published in 2016, whereas a total of 12 NMAs on atherosclerosis treatment published between 2014 and 2016 were identified. Most NMAs focused on RCTs only, with primary prevention analyses including on average more trials and patients than those focusing on secondary prevention. In most cases, conclusive findings for clinically relevant outcomes could be provided. Yet, several inconclusive findings were reported, suggesting thus that NMAs can also guide new research by emphasizing where new evidence is most needed. NMAs provide a unique opportunity for poignant synthesis of high-quality evidence. In particular, they seem particularly promising when the evidence base has reached a sufficient level of maturity, and several competing interventions require comprehensive and comparative risk-benefit appraisal.

Methodological Standards for Meta-Analyses and Qualitative Systematic Reviews of Cardiac Prevention and Treatment Studies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the fields of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. They are often considered to be a reliable source of evidence for making healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, problems among meta-analyses such as the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistical methods and tests are long-standing and widespread. The purposes of this statement are to review key steps in the development of a meta-analysis and to provide recommendations that will be useful for carrying out meta-analyses and for readers and journal editors, who must interpret the findings and gauge methodological quality. To make the statement practical and accessible, detailed descriptions of statistical methods have been omitted. Based on a survey of cardiovascular meta-analyses, published literature on methodology, expert consultation, and consensus among the writing group, key recommendations are provided. Recommendations reinforce several current practices, including protocol registration; comprehensive search strategies; methods for data extraction and abstraction; methods for identifying, measuring, and dealing with heterogeneity; and statistical methods for pooling results. Other practices should be discontinued, including the use of levels of evidence and evidence hierarchies to gauge the value and impact of different study designs (including meta-analyses) and the use of structured tools to assess the quality of studies to be included in a meta-analysis. We also recommend choosing a pooling model for conventional meta-analyses (fixed effect or random effects) on the basis of clinical and methodological similarities among studies to be included, rather than the results of a test for statistical heterogeneity.

Network Meta-analysis to Synthesize Evidence for Decision Making in Cardiovascular Research

Clinical decision-making requires synthesis of evidence from literature reviews focused on a specific theme. Evidence synthesis is performed with qualitative assessments and systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials, typically covering statistical pooling with pairwise meta-analyses. These methods include adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and mixed-treatment comparison. These tools allow synthesis of evidence and comparison of effectiveness in cardiovascular research.

Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians

Network meta-analysis is a technique for comparing multiple treatments simultaneously in a single analysis by combining direct and indirect evidence within a network of randomized controlled trials. Network meta-analysis may assist assessing the comparative effectiveness of different treatments regularly used in clinical practice and, therefore, has become attractive among clinicians. However, if proper caution is not taken in conducting and interpreting network meta-analysis, inferences might be biased. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the process of network meta-analysis with the aid of a working example on first-line medical treatment for primary open-angle glaucoma. We discuss the key assumption of network meta-analysis, as well as the unique considerations for developing appropriate research questions, conducting the literature search, abstracting data, performing qualitative and quantitative synthesis, presenting results, drawing conclusions, and reporting the findings in a network meta-analysis.

Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients

STUDY QUESTION

What is the most safe and effective interventional treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis?

METHODS

In a hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and major scientific websites were screened up to 10 August 2015. Randomised controlled trials of patients with any type of coronary in-stent restenosis (either of bare metal stents or drug eluting stents; and either first or recurrent instances) were included. Trials including multiple treatments at the same time in the same group or comparing variants of the same intervention were excluded. Primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation and late lumen loss, both at six to 12 months. The main analysis was complemented by network subanalyses, standard pairwise comparisons, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS

Twenty four trials (4880 patients), including seven interventional treatments, were identified. Compared with plain balloons, bare metal stents, brachytherapy, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents were associated with a reduced risk of target lesion revascularisation and major adverse cardiac events, and with reduced late lumen loss. Treatment ranking indicated that drug eluting stents had the highest probability (61.4%) of being the most effective for target lesion vascularisation; drug coated balloons were similarly indicated as the most effective treatment for late lumen loss (probability 70.3%). The comparative efficacy of drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents was similar for target lesion revascularisation (summary odds ratio 1.10, 95% credible interval 0.59 to 2.01) and late lumen loss reduction (mean difference in minimum lumen diameter 0.04 mm, 95% credible interval -0.20 to 0.10). Risks of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were comparable across all treatments, but these analyses were limited by a low number of events. Trials had heterogeneity regarding investigation periods, baseline characteristics, and endpoint reporting, with a lack of information at long term follow-up. Direct and indirect evidence was also inconsistent for the comparison between drug eluting stents and drug coated balloons.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Compared with other currently available interventional treatments for coronary in-stent restenosis, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents are associated with superior clinical and angiographic outcomes, with a similar comparative efficacy.

FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING

This study received no external funding. The authors declare no competing interests. No additional data available.