Al Khalifah Reem, Florez Ivan D, Guyatt Gordon, Thabane Lehana
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
BMC Pediatr. 2018 May 29;18(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1132-9.
Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analytic tool that allows simultaneous comparison between several management/treatment alternatives even when direct comparisons of the alternatives (such as the case in which treatments are compared against placebo and have not been compared against each other) are unavailable. Though there are still a limited number of pediatric NMAs published, the rapid increase in NMAs in other areas suggests pediatricians will soon be frequently facing this new form of evidence summary.
Evaluating the NMA evidence requires serial judgments on the creditability of the process of NMA conduct, and evidence quality assessment. First clinicians need to evaluate the basic standards applicable to any meta-analysis (e.g. comprehensive search, duplicate assessment of eligibility, risk of bias, and data abstraction). Then evaluate specific issues related to NMA including precision, transitivity, coherence, and rankings.
In this article we discuss how clinicians can evaluate the credibility of NMA methods, and how they can make judgments regarding the quality (certainty) of the evidence. We illustrate the concepts using recent pediatric NMA publications.
网络荟萃分析(NMA)是一种强大的分析工具,即使在无法进行多种管理/治疗方案的直接比较(例如,治疗与安慰剂进行比较但未相互比较的情况)时,也能同时对几种管理/治疗方案进行比较。尽管已发表的儿科NMA数量仍然有限,但其他领域NMA数量的迅速增加表明,儿科医生很快将经常面对这种新形式的证据总结。
评估NMA证据需要对NMA实施过程的可信度进行一系列判断,并进行证据质量评估。首先,临床医生需要评估适用于任何荟萃分析的基本标准(例如全面检索、资格重复评估、偏倚风险和数据提取)。然后评估与NMA相关的具体问题,包括精确性、可传递性、一致性和排名。
在本文中,我们讨论了临床医生如何评估NMA方法的可信度,以及他们如何对证据的质量(确定性)做出判断。我们使用最近的儿科NMA出版物来说明这些概念。