Network meta-analysis is a popular method to synthesize the information obtained in a systematic review of studies (e.g., randomized clinical trials) involving subsets of multiple treatments of interest. The dominant method of analysis employs within-study information on treatment contrasts and integrates this over a network of studies. One…

The Hartung-Knapp method for random-effects meta-analysis, that was also independently proposed by Sidik and Jonkman, is becoming advocated for general use. This method has previously been justified by taking all estimated variances as known and using a different pivotal quantity to the more conventional one when making inferences about the…

One of the reasons for the popularity of meta-analysis is the notion that these analyses will possess more power to detect effects than individual studies. This is inevitably the case under a fixed-effect model. However, the inclusion of the between-study variance in the random-effects model, and the need to estimate this parameter, can have…

Network meta-analysis is used to simultaneously compare multiple treatments in a single analysis. However, network meta-analyses may exhibit inconsistency, where direct and different forms of indirect evidence are not in agreement with each other, even after allowing for between-study heterogeneity. Models for network meta-analysis with random…

Background: Many reviews aim to compare numerous treatments and report results stratified by subgroups (eg, by disease severity). In such cases, a network meta-analysis model including treatment by covariate interactions can estimate the relative effects of all treatment pairings for each subgroup of patients. Two key assumptions underlie such…

Despite having drawn from empirical evidence and cumulative prior expertise in the formulation of research questions as well as study design, each study is treated as a stand-alone product rather than positioned within a sequence of cumulative evidence. While results of prior studies are typically cited within the body of prior literature review,…

In the debate over evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for youth, one question is central: Do EBTs produce better outcomes than the usual interventions employed in clinical care? The authors addressed this question through a meta-analysis of 32 randomized trials that directly compared EBTs with usual care. EBTs outperformed usual care. Effects fell…