An investigation of the impact of using different methods for network meta-analysis: a protocol for an empirical evaluation

Theory and practice of Bayesian and frequentist frameworks for network meta-analysis

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an increasingly popular statistical method of synthesising evidence to assess the comparative benefits and harms of multiple treatments in a single analysis. Several automated software packages facilitate conducting NMA using either of two alternative approaches, Bayesian or frequentist frameworks. Researchers must choose a framework for conducting NMA (Bayesian or frequentist) and select appropriate model(s), and those conducting NMA need to understand the assumptions and limitations of different approaches. Bayesian models are more frequently used and can be more flexible but require checking additional assumptions and greater statistical expertise that are often ignored. The present paper describes the important theoretical aspects of Bayesian and frequentist models for NMA and the applications and considerations of contrast-synthesis and arm-synthesis NMAs. In addition, we present evidence from a limited number of simulation and empirical studies that compared different frequentist and Bayesian models and provide an overview of available automated software packages to perform NMA. We will conclude that when analysts choose appropriate models, there are seldom important differences in the results of Bayesian and frequentist approaches and that network meta-analysts should therefore focus on model features rather than the statistical framework.

Contrast-Based and Arm-Based Models for Network Meta-Analysis

Network meta-analysis is used to synthesize evidence from a network of treatments. The models used in a network meta-analysis are more complex than those used for pairwise meta-analysis. Two types of models are available to undertake a network meta-analysis: contrast-based and arm-based models. Contrast-based models have been used in most published network meta-analyses. Arm-based models offer greater flexibility and handle treatments symmetrically, but risk compromising randomization. In this chapter, we (1) present the contrast-based and arm-based statistical models; (2) describe the theoretical differences between the models (noting when the estimates from the models are expected to diverge); (3) summarize the evidence comparing the two models from simulation studies and empirical investigations; and (4) provide a worked example applying the two models to a network using the R software package.

A Network Meta-analysis of Surgery for Chronic Pancreatitis: Impact on Pain and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The surgical operation associated with improved pain and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) is unknown.

METHOD

The Scopus, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane databases were systematically searched until May 2019, and all randomised trials (RCTs) comparing surgical operations for CP pain were included in a network meta-analysis (NMA).

RESULTS

Four surgical operations for treating CP were directly compared in eight RCTs including 597 patients. Patients were mainly male (79%, 474/597) with alcoholic CP (85%, 382/452). Surgical operations included were pancreatoduodenectomy (224, 38%), Berne procedure (168, 28%), Beger procedure (133, 22%) and Frey procedure (72, 12%). The NMA revealed that the Beger procedure ranked best for pain relief, whilst the Frey procedure ranked best for postoperative QoL, postoperative pancreatic fistula rate and postoperative exocrine insufficiency rate during a median follow-up of 26 months (reported range 6-58 months). Overall the Frey procedure ranked best for the combination of primary outcome measures based on surface under cumulative ranking curve scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall the Frey procedure may perform the best for both pain relief and postoperative QoL in patients with CP. Further trials are warranted in defining the role of surgery in relation to endotherapy.

Component network meta-analysis compared to a matching method in a disconnected network: A case study

Network meta-analysis is a method to combine evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare a number of different interventions for a given clinical condition. Usually, this requires a connected network. A possible approach to link a disconnected network is to add evidence from nonrandomized comparisons, using propensity score or matching-adjusted indirect comparisons methods. However, nonrandomized comparisons may be associated with an unclear risk of bias. Schmitz et al. used single-arm observational studies for bridging the gap between two disconnected networks of treatments for multiple myeloma. We present a reanalysis of these data using component network meta-analysis (CNMA) models entirely based on RCTs, utilizing the fact that many of the treatments consisted of common treatment components occurring in both networks. We discuss forward and backward strategies for selecting appropriate CNMA models and compare the results to those obtained by Schmitz et al. using their matching method. CNMA models provided a good fit to the data and led to treatment rankings that were similar, though not fully equal to that obtained by Schmitz et al. We conclude that researchers encountering a disconnected network with treatments in different subnets having common components should consider a CNMA model. Such models, exclusively based on evidence from RCTs, are a promising alternative to matching approaches that require additional evidence from observational studies. CNMA models are implemented in the R package netmeta.

A comparison of arm-based and contrast-based models for network meta-analysis

Differences between arm-based (AB) and contrast-based (CB) models for network meta-analysis (NMA) are controversial. We compare the CB model of Lu and Ades (2006), the AB model of Hong et al(2016), and two intermediate models, using hypothetical data and a selected real data set. Differences between models arise primarily from study intercepts being fixed effects in the Lu-Ades model but random effects in the Hong model, and we identify four key difference. (1) If study intercepts are fixed effects then only within-study information is used, but if they are random effects then between-study information is also used and can cause important bias. (2) Models with random study intercepts are suitable for deriving a wider range of estimands, eg, the marginal risk difference, when underlying risk is derived from the NMA data; but underlying risk is usually best derived from external data, and then models with fixed intercepts are equally good. (3) The Hong model allows treatment effects to be related to study intercepts, but the Lu-Ades model does not. (4) The Hong model is valid under a more relaxed missing data assumption, that arms (rather than contrasts) are missing at random, but this does not appear to reduce bias. We also describe an AB model with fixed study intercepts and a CB model with random study intercepts. We conclude that both AB and CB models are suitable for the analysis of NMA data, but using random study intercepts requires a strong rationale such as relating treatment effects to study intercepts.