Abstract
Objective It is frequent to find overlapping network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic with differences in terms of both treatments included and effect estimates. We aimed to evaluate the impact on effect estimates of selecting different treatment combinations (i.e. network geometries) for inclusion in NMAs.
Design Multiverse analysis, covering all possible NMAs on different combinations of treatments.
Setting Data from a previously published NMA exploring the comparative effectiveness of 22 treatments (21 antidepressants and a placebo) for the treatment of acute major depressive disorder.
Participants Cipriani et al (2018) explored a dataset of 116 477 patients included in 522 randomized controlled trials.
Main outcome measures For each possible network geometry, we performed a NMA to estimate comparative effectiveness on treatment response and treatment discontinuation for the treatments included (231 between-treatment comparisons). The distribution of effect estimates of between-treatment comparisons across NMAs was computed, and the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the 1st and 99th percentiles were compared.
Results 4 116 254 different NMAs concerned treatment response. Among possible network geometries, 172/ 231 (74%) pairwise comparisons exhibited opposite effects between the 1st and 99th percentiles, 57/231 (25%) comparisons exhibited statistically significant results in opposite directions, 118 of 231 (51%) comparisons derived non-robust results in terms of statistical significance at 5% risk and 56/231 (24%) treatment pairs obtained robust results across meta-analyses. Comparisons based on indirect evidence only were associated with greater variability in effect estimates. Comparisons with small absolute values observed in the complete NMA more frequently obtained statistically significant results in opposite directions. Similar results were observed for treatment discontinuation.
Conclusion In this case study we observed that the selection of treatments to be included in a NMA could have considerable consequences on treatment effect estimations.
Registration https://osf.io/mb5dy
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/83rthbp8ys/2
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced are available online athttps://osf.io/hb7uj/
