Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Public Library of Science full text link Public Library of Science Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Review
.2014 Dec 26;9(12):e115065.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115065. eCollection 2014.

Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages

Affiliations
Review

Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages

Binod Neupane et al. PLoS One..

Erratum in

Abstract

Network meta-analysis (NMA)--a statistical technique that allows comparison of multiple treatments in the same meta-analysis simultaneously--has become increasingly popular in the medical literature in recent years. The statistical methodology underpinning this technique and software tools for implementing the methods are evolving. Both commercial and freely available statistical software packages have been developed to facilitate the statistical computations using NMA with varying degrees of functionality and ease of use. This paper aims to introduce the reader to three R packages, namely, gemtc, pcnetmeta, and netmeta, which are freely available software tools implemented in R. Each automates the process of performing NMA so that users can perform the analysis with minimal computational effort. We present, compare and contrast the availability and functionality of different important features of NMA in these three packages so that clinical investigators and researchers can determine which R packages to implement depending on their analysis needs. Four summary tables detailing (i) data input and network plotting, (ii) modeling options, (iii) assumption checking and diagnostic testing, and (iv) inference and reporting tools, are provided, along with an analysis of a previously published dataset to illustrate the outputs available from each package. We demonstrate that each of the three packages provides a useful set of tools, and combined provide users with nearly all functionality that might be desired when conducting a NMA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Network plots created by R packages a)gemtc, b)pcnetmeta, and c)netmeta.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inconsistency-detecting heat map functionnetheat from thenetmeta package applied to the diabetes data set.
Figure 3
Figure 3. A forest plot of the estimates of odds ratios between each treatment and the reference placebo created using thegemtc R package and diabetes data.
Figure 4
Figure 4. A sample of the detailed comparison-wise forest plots available from thegemtc R package outlining odds ratio estimates from contributing studies, direct evidence and indirect evidence using treatments 5 (diuretic) and 6 (placebo) from the diabetes data.
Figure 5
Figure 5. A forest plot of the estimates of odds ratios between each treatment and the reference placebo created using thenetmeta R package and diabetes data.
Figure 6
Figure 6. A confidence interval plot from thepcnetmeta R package displaying estimates of the event rates for all treatments in the diabetes dataset.
Figure 7
Figure 7. A density plot from thepcnetmeta R package displaying posterior densities for estimates of the event rates for all treatments in the diabetes dataset.
Figure 8
Figure 8. A rank plot created using therankogram function from thegemtc R package applied to the diabetes dataset illustrating empirical probabilities that each treatment is ranked 1st through 6th (left to right).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P (2014) Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. Bmj 348:g1741. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, et al. (2011) Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 14:429–437. - PubMed
    1. Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Schmid CH, et al. (2014) Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PLoS One 9:e86754. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee AW (2014) Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol 67:138–143. - PubMed
    1. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50:683–691. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Public Library of Science full text link Public Library of Science Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp