Seventy years of evidence on the efficacy and safety of drugs for treating leprosy: a network meta-analysis

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

Pooling of direct and indirect evidence from randomized trials, known as mixed treatment comparisons (MTC), is becoming increasingly common in the clinical literature. MTC allows coherent judgements on which of the several treatments is the most effective and produces estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with every other treatment in a network.We introduce two methods for checking consistency of direct and indirect evidence. The first method (back-calculation) infers the contribution of indirect evidence from the direct evidence and the output of an MTC analysis and is useful when the only available data consist of pooled summaries of the pairwise contrasts. The second more general, but computationally intensive, method is based on 'node-splitting' which separates evidence on a particular comparison (node) into 'direct' and 'indirect' and can be applied to networks where trial-level data are available. Methods are illustrated with examples from the literature. We take a hierarchical Bayesian approach to MTC implemented using WinBUGS and R.We show that both methods are useful in identifying potential inconsistencies in different types of network and that they illustrate how the direct and indirect evidence combine to produce the posterior MTC estimates of relative treatment effects. This allows users to understand how MTC synthesis is pooling the data, and what is 'driving' the final estimates.We end with some considerations on the modelling assumptions being made, the problems with the extension of the back-calculation method to trial-level data and discuss our methods in the context of the existing literature.