Guelimi R, Afach S, Chiocchia V, Sbidian E, Le Cleach L, Salanti G
EpiDermE, Université Paris Est Créteil, Créteil, France.
Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Universitaire Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Apr 23;25(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02558-6.
When conducting network meta-analysis (NMA), researchers need to make several methodological and analytical decisions, which can influence the results of NMAs. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of different methodological choices on the conclusions from the analyses of a network of 20 active treatments in patients with psoriasis.
We re-analysed the available data of a living Cochrane NMA evaluating the systemic treatments in psoriasis under various analytical scenarios defined by the combination of pre-specified methodological choices. We performed NMAs on three outcomes: Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 90, PASI 100 and serious adverse events (SAEs). Variability of the effect estimates across NMAs was summarized using ratio of relative risks (RRR) and ratio of odds ratio (ROR). We estimated the level of agreement between the treatment hierarchies using the Average Overlap (AO).
Overall, 560 NMAs were conducted. The median number of included interventions was 18 (IQR 17-19), for a median number of included studies of 68 (IQR 57-93). The median RRR was 1.06 (IQR 1.06-1.08) for PASI 90, 1.07 (IQR 1.06-1.10) for early PASI 90, 1.14 (IQR 1.06-1.15) for late PASI 90, 1.04 (IQR 1.01-1.05) for PASI 100, and 1.02 (IQR 1.02-1.06) for SAEs. The criteria with the greatest impact on the effect estimates were the inclusion or exclusion of studies with biological-naïve patients, inclusion or exclusion of phase II trials, and the inclusion or exclusion of studies evaluating conventional treatments. The analysis choice with the greatest impact was the use of the Mantel-Haenszel method instead of the inverse variance method. There was a high agreement of treatment hierarchies between analyses. For the top 6 ranking treatments, the median AO across all scenarios for PASI 90 was 0.84 (IQR 0.72-0.97). For early PASI 90, late PASI 90, PASI 100, and SAE, the median AO were 0.94 (IQR 0.91-0.97), 0.75 (IQR 0.65-0.97), 0.94 (IQR 0.91-0.97), and 0.59 (IQR 0.59- 0.90), respectively.
We found that different methodological choices could influence NMAs' results. However, even though moderate variation in effect estimates could be observed across the analyses, treatment hierarchies remained stable for the top-ranking drugs.
在进行网状Meta分析(NMA)时,研究人员需要做出若干方法学和分析方面的决策,这些决策可能会影响NMA的结果。我们的目的是评估不同方法学选择对银屑病患者20种活性治疗方法的网络分析结论的影响。
我们重新分析了一项正在进行的Cochrane NMA的可用数据,该分析在由预先指定的方法学选择组合定义的各种分析场景下评估银屑病的全身治疗方法。我们对三个结局进行了NMA:银屑病面积和严重程度指数(PASI)90、PASI 100和严重不良事件(SAE)。使用相对风险比(RRR)和比值比(ROR)总结了不同NMA中效应估计值的变异性。我们使用平均重叠度(AO)估计了治疗等级之间的一致性水平。
总体而言,共进行了560次NMA。纳入干预措施的中位数为18(四分位间距17 - 19),纳入研究的中位数为68(四分位间距57 - 93)。PASI 90的RRR中位数为1.06(四分位间距1.06 - 1.08),早期PASI 90为1.07(四分位间距1.06 - 1.10),晚期PASI 90为1.14(四分位间距1.06 - 1.15),PASI 100为1.04(四分位间距1.01 - 1.05),SAE为1.02(四分位间距1.02 - 1.06)。对效应估计影响最大的标准是纳入或排除未使用过生物制剂的患者的研究、纳入或排除II期试验以及纳入或排除评估传统治疗方法的研究。影响最大的分析选择是使用Mantel - Haenszel方法而非逆方差法。各分析之间治疗等级的一致性较高。对于排名前6的治疗方法,PASI 90所有场景下的AO中位数为0.84(四分位间距0.72 - 0.97)。对于早期PASI 90、晚期PASI 90、PASI 100和SAE,AO中位数分别为0.94(四分位间距0.91 - 0.97)、0.75(四分位间距0.65 - 0.97)、0.94(四分位间距0.91 - 0.97)和0.59(四分位间距0.59 - 0.90)。
我们发现不同的方法学选择可能会影响NMA的结果。然而,尽管在各分析中可观察到效应估计值存在适度差异,但排名靠前的药物的治疗等级保持稳定。