Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A guide to appropriately planning and conducting meta-analyses: part 3. Special considerations—the network meta-analysis

  • REVIEW
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

The meta-analysis has become one of the predominant studies designs in orthopaedic literature. Within recent years, the network meta-analysis has been implicated as a powerful approach to comparing multiple treatments for an outcome of interest when conducting a meta-analysis (as opposed to two competing treatments which is typical of a traditional meta-analysis). With the increasing use of the network meta-analysis, it is imperative for readers to possess the ability to independently and critically evaluate these types of studies. The purpose of this article is to provide the necessary foundation of knowledge to both properly conduct and interpret the results of a network meta-analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

There is no associated data with this study.

References

  1. Ahn E, Kang H (2021) Concepts and emerging issues of network meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol 74:371–382

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Amer MA, Smith MD, Herbison GP, McCall JL (2020) Network meta-analysis: what it is and why you should know. ANZ J Surg 90:954–956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Challoumas D, Biddle M, McLean M, Millar NL (2020) Comparison of treatments for frozen shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2029581

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gonzalez-Xuriguera CG, Vergara-Merino L, Garegnani L, Ortiz-Munoz L, Meza N (2021) Introduction to network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis. Medwave 21:e8315. https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2021.06.8315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kunze KN, Polce EM, Lilly DT, Garcia FL, Cohn MR, Nho SJ et al (2020) Adjunct analgesia reduces pain and opioid consumption after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med 48:3638–3651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lameire DL, Khalik HA, Phillips M, MacDonald AE, Banfield L, de Sa D et al (2022) Thromboprophylaxis after knee arthroscopy does not decrease the risk of deep vein thrombosis: a network meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:2364–2376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mavridis D (2019) Network meta-analysis in a nutshell. Evid Based Ment Health 22:100–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mbuagbaw L, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, Heels-Andsell D, Alhazzani W, Thabane L et al (2017) Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev 6:79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0473-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA et al (2014) A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 349:g5630. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rücker G, Schwarzer G (2015) Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sadeghirad B, Foroutan F, Zoratti MJ, Busse JW, Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt G et al (2022) Theory and practice of Bayesian and frequentist frameworks for network meta-analysis. BMJ Evid-Based Med. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111928bmjebm-2022-111928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Seide SE, Jensen K, Kieser M (2020) A comparison of Bayesian and frequentist methods in random-effects network meta-analysis of binary data. Res Synthe Methods 11:363–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Senn S, Gavini F, Magrez D, Scheen A (2013) Issues in performing a network meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 22:169–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shim S, Yoon BH, Shin IS, Bae JM (2017) Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata. Epidemiol Health 39:e2017047

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Singh H, Knapik DM, Polce EM, Eikani CK, Bjornstad AH, Gursoy S et al (2022) Relative efficacy of intra-articular injections in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 50:3140–3148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tian J, Gao Y, Zhang J, Yang Z, Dong S, Zhang T et al (2021) Progress and challenges of network meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med 14:218–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uhlmann L, Jensen K, Kieser M (2018) Hypothesis testing in Bayesian network meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 18:128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0574-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Watt J, Del Giovane C (2022) Network meta-analysis. Methods Mol Biol 2345:187–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yang A, Pechlivanoglou P, Aoyama K (2022) Interpreting and assessing confidence in network meta-analysis results: an introduction for clinicians. J Anesth 36:524–531

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70Th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Kyle N. Kunze, Ayoosh Pareek & Riley J. Williams III

  2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Jeffrey Kay & Darren de Sa

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jari Dahmen

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jorge Chahla & Shane J. Nho

  5. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jon Karlsson

Authors
  1. Kyle N. Kunze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey Kay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayoosh Pareek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jari Dahmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jorge Chahla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shane J. Nho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Riley J. Williams III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Darren de Sa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jon Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KK: conceptualization, writing of initial manuscript, supervision, manuscript revision. JK, AP, JK, JD, JC, SJN, RW, DS: manuscript revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle N. Kunze.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Ethical approval

This study is exempt from institutional board approval.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kunze, K.N., Kay, J., Pareek, A. et al. A guide to appropriately planning and conducting meta-analyses: part 3. Special considerations—the network meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31, 2544–2549 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07419-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07419-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation