European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 131–132 | Cite as

Graphical representation of network meta-analysis: an iconographic support to the complexity of multiple data comparisons

  • Renato De Vecchis
  • Carmelina Ariano
  • Angelos Rigopoulos
  • Michel Noutsias
Letter to the Editor
Traditional meta-analysis is able to compare two treatments against each other, but is not able to analyze the cases in which the treatment regimens to be compared are ≥ 3. For example, considering two innovative treatments T1 and T2 and the corresponding standard treatment S, it is frequent the case in which there are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing T1 vs. S and also T2 vs. S, but there is a lack of controlled head-to-head comparison studies between T1 and T2. The network meta-analysis (NeMa) [ 1, 2, 3] overcomes this major limit by making both direct and indirect comparisons. Within a NeMa, the comparison between two treatments involved in an RTC is defined “direct” (e.g., the comparisons T1 vs S and T2 vs S), while instead, we usually term “indirect” the comparison between two treatments for which a specific comparative assessment (RCT) does not exist yet (e.g., T1 vs T2). Several NEMa graphic representations have already been used by other authors, e.g., with the use...


  1. 1.
    Ades AE, Mavranezouli I, Dias S, Welton NJ, Whittington C, Kendall T (2010) Network meta-analysis with competing risk outcomes. Value Health 13(8):976–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lumley T (2002) Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21(16):2313–2324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woods BS, Hawkins N, Scott DA (2010) Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: a tutorial. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Reilly PA, Wallentin L (2010) Randomized evaluation of long-term anticoagulation therapy investigators. Newly identified events in the RE-LY trial. N Engl J Med 363(19):1875–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ROCKET AF Study Investigators (2010) Rivaroxaban-once daily, oral, direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation: rationale and design of the ROCKET AF study. Am Heart J 159(3):340–347.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aalbers J (2010) Rivaroxaban equals warfarin treatment in atrial fibrillation patients at high risk of stroke. Cardiovasc J Afr 21(6):342–343Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, Hsueh YH, Izem R, Southworth MR, Wei Y, Liao J, Goulding MR, Mott K, Chillarige Y, MaCurdy TE, Worrall C, Kelman JA (2016) Stroke, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare beneficiaries treated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. JAMA Intern Med 176(11):1662–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hernandez I, Zhang Y (2017) Comparing stroke and bleeding with rivaroxaban and dabigatran in atrial fibrillation: analysis of the US Medicare Part D data. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 17(1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noseworthy PA, Yao X, Abraham NS, Sangaralingham LR, McBane RD, Shah ND (2016) Direct comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for effectiveness and safety in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Chest 150(6):1302–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Preventive Cardiology and Rehabilitation UnitDSB 29 “S.Gennaro dei Poveri Hospital”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Geriatrics“Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza” HospitalSan Giovanni RotondoItaly
  3. 3.Mid-German Heart Center, Division of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Medical CareUniversity Hospital Halle, Martin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations