MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4238341580 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-403088/v1

Prevalence of Inconsistency and Its Association With Network Structural Characteristics in 201 Published Networks of Interventions

2021· preprint· en· W4238341580 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Sofia Tsokani, Ian R. White, Guido Schwarzer, Gerta Rücker, Dimitris Mavridis, Julian P. T. Higgins, Georgia Salanti

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Psychological interventionMeta-analysisReliability (semiconductor)Association (psychology)StatisticsMedicinePsychologyEconometricsComputer sciencePower (physics)MathematicsPsychiatryInternal medicineArtificial intelligencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Network meta-analysis (NMA) has attracted growing interest in evidence-based medicine. Consistency between different sources of evidence is fundamental to the reliability of the NMA results. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of inconsistency and describe its association with different NMA characteristics. Methods: We updated our collection of NMAs with articles published up to July 2018. We included networks with randomised clinical trials, at least four treatment nodes, at least one closed loop, a dichotomous primary outcome, and available arm-level data. We assessed consistency using the design-by-treatment interaction (DBT) model. We estimated the prevalence of inconsistency and its association with different network characteristics (e.g., number of studies, treatments, treatment comparisons, loops), and evaluated heterogeneity in NMA and DBT models.Results: We included 201 published NMAs. The p-value of the design-by-treatment interaction (DBT) model was lower than 0.05 in 14% of the networks and lower than 0.10 in 20% of the networks. Networks comparing few interventions in many studies were more likely to have small DBT p-values (less than 0.10), which is probably because they yielded more precise estimates and power to detect differences between designs was higher. In the presence of inconsistency (DBT p-value lower than 0.10), the consistency model displayed higher heterogeneity than the DBT model. Conclusions: Our findings show that inconsistency was more frequent than what would be expected by chance, suggesting that researchers should devote more resources to exploring how to mitigate inconsistency. The results of this study highlight the need to develop strategies to detect inconsistency (because of the relatively high prevalence of inconsistency in published networks), and particularly in cases where the existing tests have low power.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.205
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.535
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2050.535
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.019
Bibliometrics0.0200.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.581
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.033 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→