1. Zarin, W, Veroniki, AA, Nincic, V, et al. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):3.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Efthimiou, O, Debray, TP, van Valkenhoef, G, et al. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods 2016;7(3):236–63.
Google Scholar | Crossref3. Caldwell, DM . An overview of conducting systematic reviews with network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2014;3:109.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Salanti, G . Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Dias, S, Welton, NJ, Sutton, AJ, Caldwell, DM, Lu, G, Ades, AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):641–56.
Google Scholar6. Nikolakopoulou, A, Chaimani, A, Veroniki, AA, Vasiliadis, HS, Schmid, CH, Salanti, G. Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86754.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Petropoulou, M, Nikolakopoulou, A, Veroniki, AA, et al. Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2015. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;82:20–8.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Bucher, HC, Guyatt, GH, Griffith, LE, Walter, SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP, van der Linde, A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2002;64:583–639.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI10. Dias, S, Sutton, AJ, Ades, AE, Welton, NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):607–17.
Google Scholar11. Dias, S, Ades, AE, Welton, NJ, Jansen, JP, Sutton, AJ. Checking for inconsistency. In: Network Meta-Analysis for Decision Making. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 2018, pp 189–226.
Google Scholar | Crossref12. Higgins, JP, Jackson, D, Barrett, JK, Lu, G, Ades, AE, White, IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98–110.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI13. White, IR, Barrett, JK, Jackson, D, Higgins, JP. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):111–25.
Google Scholar | Crossref14. Cipriani, A, Barbui, C, Salanti, G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011;378(9799):1306–15.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Baker, WL, Baker, EL, Coleman, CI. Pharmacologic treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(8):891–905.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Spineli, LM, Kalyvas, C, Papadimitropoulou, K. Continuous(ly) missing outcome data in network meta-analysis: a one-stage pattern-mixture model approach. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021;30(4):958–75.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals17. Spineli, LM . An empirical comparison of Bayesian modelling strategies for missing binary outcome data in network meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):86.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Lu, G, Ades, AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101:447–59.
Google Scholar | Crossref19. Higgins, JP, Whitehead, A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1996;15(24):2733–49.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. Rücker, G, Schwarzer, G. Reduce dimension or reduce weights? Comparing two approaches to multi-arm studies in network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2014;33(25):4353–69.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Gelman, A, Rubin, DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci. 1992;7(4):457–72.
Google Scholar | Crossref22. Plummer, M . JAGS: Just Another Gibbs Sampler. Version 4.3.0 user manual. 2017. Available from: https://people.stat.sc.edu/hansont/stat740/jags_user_manual.pdf
Google Scholar23. Su, YS, Yajima, M. R2jags: Using R to Run ‘JAGS’. R package version 0.6-1. 2020. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=R2jags
Google Scholar24. R Core Team. R : A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. Available from https://www.r-project.org
Google Scholar25. Wickham, H . ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer; 2016.
Google Scholar26. Lin, L, Zhang, J, Hodges, JS, Chu, H. Performing arm-based network meta-analysis in R with the pcnetmeta Package. J Stat Softw. 2017;80:5.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Higgins, JP . Commentary: heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1158–60.
Google Scholar | Crossref