+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 4 : Inconsistency in Networks of Evidence Based on Randomized Controlled Trials

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Inconsistency can be thought of as a conflict between “direct” evidence on a comparison between treatments B and C and “indirect” evidence gained from AC and AB trials. Like heterogeneity, inconsistency is caused by effect modifiers and specifically by an imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers in the direct and indirect evidence. Defining inconsistency as a property of loops of evidence, the relation between inconsistency and heterogeneity and the difficulties created by multiarm trials are described. We set out an approach to assessing consistency in 3-treatment triangular networks and in larger circuit structures, its extension to certain special structures in which independent tests for inconsistencies can be created, and describe methods suitable for more complex networks. Sample WinBUGS code is given in an appendix. Steps that can be taken to minimize the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions from indirect comparisons and network meta-analysis are the same steps that will minimize heterogeneity in pairwise meta-analysis. Empirical indicators that can provide reassurance and the question of how to respond to inconsistency are also discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials.

          Many trials have been done to compare primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with thrombolytic therapy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (AMI). Our aim was to look at the combined results of these trials and to ascertain which reperfusion therapy is most effective. We did a search of published work and identified 23 trials, which together randomly assigned 7739 thrombolytic-eligible patients with ST-segment elevation AMI to primary PTCA (n=3872) or thrombolytic therapy (n=3867). Streptokinase was used in eight trials (n=1837), and fibrin-specific agents in 15 (n=5902). Most patients who received thrombolytic therapy (76%, n=2939) received a fibrin-specific agent. Stents were used in 12 trials, and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in eight. We identified short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of death, non-fatal reinfarction, and stroke, and did subgroup analyses to assess the effect of type of thrombolytic agent used and the strategy of emergent hospital transfer for primary PTCA. All analyses were done with and without inclusion of the SHOCK trial data. Primary PTCA was better than thrombolytic therapy at reducing overall short-term death (7% [n=270] vs 9% [360]; p=0.0002), death excluding the SHOCK trial data (5% [199] vs 7% [276]; p=0.0003), non-fatal reinfarction (3% [80] vs 7% [222]; p<0.0001), stroke (1% [30] vs 2% [64]; p=0.0004), and the combined endpoint of death, non-fatal reinfarction, and stroke (8% [253] vs 14% [442]; p<0.0001). The results seen with primary PTCA remained better than those seen with thrombolytic therapy during long-term follow-up, and were independent of both the type of thrombolytic agent used, and whether or not the patient was transferred for primary PTCA. Primary PTCA is more effective than thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of ST-segment elevation AMI.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

            When little or no data directly comparing two treatments are available, investigators often rely on indirect comparisons from studies testing the treatments against a control or placebo. One approach to indirect comparison is to pool findings from the active treatment arms of the original controlled trials. This approach offers no advantage over a comparison of observational study data and is prone to bias. We present an alternative model that evaluates the differences between treatment and placebo in two sets of clinical trials, and preserves the randomization of the originally assigned patient groups. We apply the method to data on sulphamethoxazole-trimethoprim or dapsone/pyrimethamine as prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii in HIV infected patients. The indirect comparison showed substantial increased benefit from the former (odds ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65), while direct comparisons from randomized trials suggests a much smaller difference (risk ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; p-value for difference of effect = 0.11). Direct comparisons of treatments should be sought. When direct comparisons are unavailable, indirect comparison meta-analysis should evaluate the magnitude of treatment effects across studies, recognizing the limited strength of inference.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.

              To determine the validity of adjusted indirect comparisons by using data from published meta-analyses of randomised trials. Direct comparison of different interventions in randomised trials and adjusted indirect comparison in which two interventions were compared through their relative effect versus a common comparator. The discrepancy between the direct and adjusted indirect comparison was measured by the difference between the two estimates. Database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (1994-8), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Medline, and references of retrieved articles. 44 published meta-analyses (from 28 systematic reviews) provided sufficient data. In most cases, results of adjusted indirect comparisons were not significantly different from those of direct comparisons. A significant discrepancy (P<0.05) was observed in three of the 44 comparisons between the direct and the adjusted indirect estimates. There was a moderate agreement between the statistical conclusions from the direct and adjusted indirect comparisons (kappa 0.51). The direction of discrepancy between the two estimates was inconsistent. Adjusted indirect comparisons usually but not always agree with the results of head to head randomised trials. When there is no or insufficient direct evidence from randomised trials, the adjusted indirect comparison may provide useful or supplementary information on the relative efficacy of competing interventions. The validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons depends on the internal validity and similarity of the included trials.

                Author and article information

                Med Decis Making
                Med Decis Making
                Medical Decision Making
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                July 2013
                July 2013
                : 33
                : 5
                : 641-656
                School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK (SD, NJW, DMC, GL, AEA)
                Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK (AJS)
                Author notes
                Sofia Dias, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK; e-mail: s.dias@ .

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.



                network meta-analysis, inconsistency, indirect evidence, bayesian


                Comment on this article