TY - JOUR
T1 - Methodologies for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in pain, anaesthesia, and perioperative medicine
T2 - a narrative review
AU - Doleman, Brett
AU - Jakobsen, Janus Christian
AU - Mathiesen, Ole
AU - Cooper, Nicola
AU - Sutton, Alex
AU - Hardman, Jonathan
N1 - Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2025/4
Y1 - 2025/4
N2 - Network meta-analysis has emerged as a method for analysing clinical trials, with a large increase in the number of publications over the past decade. Network meta-analysis offers advantages over traditional pairwise meta-analysis, including increased power, the ability to compare treatments not compared in the original trials, and the ability to rank treatments. However, network meta-analyses are inherently more complex than pairwise meta-analyses, requiring additional statistical expertise and assumptions. Many factors can affect the certainty of evidence from pairwise meta-analysis and can often lead to unreliable results. Network meta-analysis is prone to all these issues, although it has the additional assumption of transitivity. Here we review network meta-analyses, problems with their conduct and reporting, and methodological strategies that can be used by those conducting reviews to help improve the reliability of their findings. We provide evidence that violation of the assumption of transitivity is relatively common and inadequately considered in published network meta-analyses. We explain key concepts with clinically relevant examples for those unfamiliar with network meta-analysis to facilitate their appraisal and application of their results to clinical practice.
AB - Network meta-analysis has emerged as a method for analysing clinical trials, with a large increase in the number of publications over the past decade. Network meta-analysis offers advantages over traditional pairwise meta-analysis, including increased power, the ability to compare treatments not compared in the original trials, and the ability to rank treatments. However, network meta-analyses are inherently more complex than pairwise meta-analyses, requiring additional statistical expertise and assumptions. Many factors can affect the certainty of evidence from pairwise meta-analysis and can often lead to unreliable results. Network meta-analysis is prone to all these issues, although it has the additional assumption of transitivity. Here we review network meta-analyses, problems with their conduct and reporting, and methodological strategies that can be used by those conducting reviews to help improve the reliability of their findings. We provide evidence that violation of the assumption of transitivity is relatively common and inadequately considered in published network meta-analyses. We explain key concepts with clinically relevant examples for those unfamiliar with network meta-analysis to facilitate their appraisal and application of their results to clinical practice.
KW - Anesthesia/methods
KW - Humans
KW - Meta-Analysis as Topic
KW - Network Meta-Analysis as Topic
KW - Pain Management/methods
KW - Perioperative Medicine/methods
KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods
U2 - 10.1016/j.bja.2024.12.039
DO - 10.1016/j.bja.2024.12.039
M3 - Review
C2 - 39979151
SN - 0007-0912
VL - 134
SP - 1029
EP - 1040
JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia
JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia
IS - 4
ER -