Spineli Loukia M
Midwifery Research and Education Unit (OE 9210), Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Dec 16;24(1):301. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02436-7.
Transitivity assumption is the cornerstone of network meta-analysis (NMA). Investigating the plausibility of transitivity can unveil the credibility of NMA results. The commonness of transitivity was examined based on study dissimilarities regarding several study-level aggregate clinical and methodological characteristics reported in the systematic reviews. The present study also demonstrated the disadvantages of using multiple statistical tests to assess transitivity and compared the conclusions drawn from multiple statistical tests with those from the approach of study dissimilarities for transitivity assessment.
An empirical study was conducted using 209 published systematic reviews with NMA to create a database of study-level aggregate clinical and methodological characteristics found in the tracenma R package. For each systematic review, the network of the primary outcome was considered to create a dataset with extracted study-level aggregate clinical and methodological characteristics reported in the systematic review that may act as effect modifiers. Transitivity was evaluated by calculating study dissimilarities based on the extracted characteristics to provide a measure of overall dissimilarity within and between the observed treatment comparisons. Empirically driven thresholds of low dissimilarity were employed to determine the proportion of datasets with evidence of likely intransitivity. One-way ANOVA and chi-squared test were employed for each characteristic to investigate comparison dissimilarity at a significance level of 5%.
Study dissimilarities covered a wide range of possible values across the datasets. A 'likely concerning' extent of study dissimilarities, both intra-comparison and inter-comparison, dominated the analysed datasets. Using a higher dissimilarity threshold, a 'likely concerning' extent of study dissimilarities persisted for objective outcomes but decreased substantially for subjective outcomes. A likely intransitivity prevailed in all datasets; however, using a higher dissimilarity threshold resulted in few networks with transitivity for semi-objective and subjective outcomes. Statistical tests were feasible in 127 (61%) datasets, yielding conflicting conclusions with the approach of study dissimilarities in many datasets.
Study dissimilarity, manifested from variations in the effect modifiers' distribution across the studies, should be expected and properly quantified. Measuring the overall study dissimilarity between observed comparisons and comparing it with a proper threshold can aid in determining whether concerns of likely intransitivity are warranted.
传递性假设是网络荟萃分析(NMA)的基石。研究传递性的合理性可以揭示NMA结果的可信度。基于系统评价中报告的几个研究水平的总体临床和方法学特征的研究差异,对传递性的普遍性进行了检验。本研究还展示了使用多种统计检验来评估传递性的缺点,并将多种统计检验得出的结论与研究差异方法得出的结论进行比较,以评估传递性。
使用209篇发表的带有NMA的系统评价进行实证研究,以创建一个在tracenma R包中发现的研究水平的总体临床和方法学特征的数据库。对于每篇系统评价,考虑主要结局的网络,以创建一个数据集,其中包含系统评价中报告的可能作为效应修饰因素的研究水平的总体临床和方法学特征。通过基于提取的特征计算研究差异来评估传递性,以提供观察到的治疗比较内部和之间的总体差异度量。采用基于经验的低差异阈值来确定有证据表明可能存在非传递性的数据集的比例。对每个特征采用单因素方差分析和卡方检验,以在5%的显著性水平下研究比较差异。
研究差异涵盖了数据集中广泛的可能值。在分析的数据集中,比较内和比较间的“可能令人担忧”程度的研究差异占主导。使用更高的差异阈值,对于客观结局,“可能令人担忧”程度的研究差异仍然存在,但对于主观结局则大幅下降。所有数据集中都普遍存在可能的非传递性;然而,使用更高的差异阈值会导致很少有网络对于半客观和主观结局具有传递性。统计检验在127个(61%)数据集中是可行的,在许多数据集中得出的结论与研究差异方法相冲突。
应预期并适当量化由效应修饰因素在研究中的分布差异所表现出的研究差异。测量观察到的比较之间的总体研究差异,并将其与适当的阈值进行比较,有助于确定是否有理由担心可能存在非传递性。