Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 2 Key assumptions of NMA

From: Assessing the comparative effects of interventions in COPD: a tutorial on network meta-analysis for clinicians

Assumption

 

Similarity

Are the studies included in the NMA similar enough in terms of research question (PICOS) to be pooled together?

Transitivity

Are there any effect modifiers (patient or study characteristics) known or thought to influence the treatment effect? If so, are there no systematic differences in the distribution of effect modifiers between the included trials?

Consistency

For mixed comparisons, is there agreement between the direct (head-to-head) and indirect (via a common comparator) evidence within the network?

Homogeneity

Are there no imbalances in population, interventions, outcomes, or study design across direct and indirect comparisons within the NMA?

  1. NMA network meta-analysis; PICOS population, intervention, comparator, outcome, setting
Back to article page

Respiratory Research

ISSN: 1465-993X

Contact us