Nutzen und Risiken von Netzwerk-Metaanalysen

• Literatur

• 1 Tefikow S. Was sind Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Metaanalysen?. Psychother Psych Med 2010; 60: 237
• 2 Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011
• 3 Kriston L. Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2013; 22: 1-15
• 4 Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005; 331: 897-900
• 5 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: 80-97
• 6 Kiefer C, Sturtz S, Bender R. Indirekte Vergleiche und Netzwerk-Metaanalysen. Dtsch Ärztebl 2015; 112: 803-808
• 7 Linde K, Rücker G, Schneider A et al. Questionable assumptions hampered interpretation of a network meta-analysis of primary care depression treatments. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 71: 86-96
• 8 Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 777-784
• 9 Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K et al. How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 2012; 308: 1246-1253
• 10 Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 349: g5630