Back to Journals » Clinical Epidemiology » Volume 6

Bias in identification of the best treatment in a Bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: a simulation study

Authors Kibret T, Richer D, Beyene J

Received 19 June 2014

Accepted for publication 3 September 2014

Published 3 December 2014 Volume 2014:6 Pages 451—460

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S69660

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Vera Ehrenstein


Taddele Kibret,1 Danielle Richer,2 Joseph Beyene1,2

1Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Abstract: Network meta-analysis (NMA) has emerged as a useful analytical tool allowing comparison of multiple treatments based on direct and indirect evidence. Commonly, a hierarchical Bayesian NMA model is used, which allows rank probabilities (the probability that each treatment is best, second best, and so on) to be calculated for decision making. However, the statistical properties of rank probabilities are not well understood. This study investigates how rank probabilities are affected by various factors such as unequal number of studies per comparison in the network, the sample size of individual studies, the network configuration, and effect sizes between treatments. In order to explore these factors, a simulation study of four treatments (three equally effective treatments and one less effective reference) was conducted. The simulation illustrated that estimates of rank probabilities are highly sensitive to both the number of studies per comparison and the overall network configuration. An unequal number of studies per comparison resulted in biased estimates of treatment rank probabilities for every network considered. The rank probability for the treatment that was included in the fewest number of studies was biased upward. Conversely, the rank of the treatment included in the most number of studies was consistently underestimated. When the simulation was altered to include three equally effective treatments and one superior treatment, the hierarchical Bayesian NMA model correctly identified the most effective treatment, regardless of all factors varied. The results of this study offer important insight into the ability of NMA models to rank treatments accurately under several scenarios. The authors recommend that health researchers use rank probabilities cautiously in making important decisions.

Keywords: multiple treatment meta-analysis, mixed treatment comparison, ranking, network configuration

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]