↓ Skip to main content

Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacy Practice (Granada), March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 315)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
268 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
251 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons
Published in
Pharmacy Practice (Granada), March 2017
DOI 10.18549/pharmpract.2017.01.943
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernanda S. Tonin, Inajara Rotta, Antonio M. Mendes, Roberto Pontarolo

Abstract

Systematic reviews and pairwise meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, at the intersection of clinical medicine, epidemiology and statistics, are positioned at the top of evidence-based practice hierarchy. These are important tools to base drugs approval, clinical protocols and guidelines formulation and for decision-making. However, this traditional technique only partially yield information that clinicians, patients and policy-makers need to make informed decisions, since it usually compares only two interventions at the time. In the market, regardless the clinical condition under evaluation, usually many interventions are available and few of them have been studied in head-to-head studies. This scenario precludes conclusions to be drawn from comparisons of all interventions profile (e.g. efficacy and safety). The recent development and introduction of a new technique - usually referred as network meta-analysis, indirect meta-analysis, multiple or mixed treatment comparisons - has allowed the estimation of metrics for all possible comparisons in the same model, simultaneously gathering direct and indirect evidence. Over the last years this statistical tool has matured as technique with models available for all types of raw data, producing different pooled effect measures, using both Frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, with different software packages. However, the conduction, report and interpretation of network meta-analysis still poses multiple challenges that should be carefully considered, especially because this technique inherits all assumptions from pairwise meta-analysis but with increased complexity. Thus, we aim to provide a basic explanation of network meta-analysis conduction, highlighting its risks and benefits for evidence-based practice, including information on statistical methods evolution, assumptions and steps for performing the analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 251 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 16%
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Other 18 7%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 60 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 23 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Other 39 16%
Unknown 86 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,465,046
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacy Practice (Granada)
#9
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,427
of 323,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacy Practice (Granada)
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.