Analysing complex interventions using component network meta-analysis
Veroniki, A.-A.; Wolfe, D.; Hutton, B.; Schwarzer, G.; McIssac, D. I.; Straus, S. E.; Jackson, D.; Tricco, A. C.
Show abstract
StandfirstSystematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA) frequently evaluate complex interventions combining multiple healthcare interventions (known as components). Components may act separately of each other or in conjunction with other components, synergistically or antagonistically. Component effect estimation is crucial to produce relevant and clinically meaningful evidence. However, standard NMA cannot quantify individual component effects of complex interventions. This study presents methods for modeling complex interventions and highlights the advantages and limitations of component NMA (CNMA). CNMA enables the estimation of individual component effects, whether additive or interactive. Interaction CNMA can be considered an extension of the additive CNMA model that includes interaction terms. We give practical guidance on how to carry out these analyses via empirical examples, which showcase both the strengths and limitations of CNMA. Implementing CNMA models is complex and requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team including clinicians, methodologists, and statisticians. Summary pointsO_LICNMA provides the opportunity to disentangle the effects of components of complex interventions and assess their efficacy or safety, accounting for potential interactions in component combinations. C_LIO_LIUnder the additivity assumption, CNMA assumes that the total effect of a complex intervention is the sum of its individual component effects (e.g., if component A lowers a symptom score by 2 points and B by 1 point, A+B is expected to lower it by 3 points), while interaction CNMA is used when there is evidence of violation of additivity and the combined effect differs due to synergy or antagonism. C_LIO_LIInteraction CNMA can be considered a compromise between additive CNMA and standard NMA, but selecting interaction terms requires clinical, statistical, and methodological considerations. C_LIO_LIClinicians and other knowledge users should be engaged in the selection of interaction CNMA models to ensure biological plausibility. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 96%
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 96%
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 94%
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 94%
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 94%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 93%
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Detecting heterogeneity of intervention effects using analysis and meta-analysis of differences in variance between arms of a trial 95%
- Incorporating data from multiple endpoints in the analysis of clinical trials: example from RSV vaccines 91%
- Incorporating efficacy data from initial trials into subsequent evaluations of vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 95%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 94%
- Predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects: a systematic review 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.