Statistical Models for Overviews of Reviews

  • Tzu-Ting Chen
  • Yu-Kang TuEmail author


Since the rise of evidence-based medicine movement, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been widely used for synthesis of evidence on beneficial and/or harmful effects of different treatments. Moreover, with the advances in medical science and knowledge, many new treatments and interventions become available, and identifying how best to compare multiple treatments is an important challenge to evidence-based medicine. Although network meta-analysis is a very powerful tool for comparing multiple treatments in terms of their benefits or harms, it requires a lot of resources and a substantial amount of time for literature search, data extraction and statistical analysis. If a decision based on currently available evidence needs to be made urgently, it might not be feasible to undertake network meta-analysis within a short period of time. Nevertheless, many traditional pairwise meta-analyses of a good quality may have been published, and there are great overlaps in literature search and data extractions between those pairwise meta-analyses and a network meta-analysis. If results of traditional meta-analysis can be used for an expedient comparison of multiple treatments, this would help researchers spend less time and resources in reaching a decision within a shorter period of time. Statistical models for an umbrella review are similar to those for a network meta-analysis, as they both aim to compare multiple treatments. Both Bayesian approach and generalized least-squares approach can be used to conduct statistical analysis for an umbrella review. This will be especially useful for policy makers or busy clinicians to obtain up-to-date evidence to make an informed decision.


Bayesian approach Evidence-based medicine Evidence synthesis Generalized least-squares approach Mixed treatment comparison Multiple treatment comparison Network meta-analysis Overview of reviews Umbrella review 


  1. 1.
    Hasselblad V. Meta-analysis of multitreatment studies. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(1):37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bucher HC, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Geddes JR, Higgins JP, Churchill R, Watanabe N, Nakagawa A, Omori IM, McGuire H, Tansella M, Barbui C. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:746–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cipriani A, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011;378(9799):1306–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tu YK, Woolston A, Faggion Jr CM. Do bone grafts or barrier membranes provide additional treatment effects for infrabony lesions treated with enamel matrix derivatives? A network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37(1):59–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong MC, et al. Cochrane reviews on the benefits/risks of fluoride toothpastes. J Dent Res. 2011;90(5):573–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tu Y-K, et al. A bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration and their combination therapies. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(3):303–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dias S, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: introduction. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):597–606.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dias S, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):607–17.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dias S, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity – subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):618–40.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dias S, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):641–56.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dias S, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 5: the baseline natural history model. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):657–70.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dias S, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 6: embedding evidence synthesis in probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):671–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ades AE, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 7: a reviewer’s checklist. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):679–91.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andrea Cipriani JPTH, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:130–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moe RH, et al. Effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hip osteoarthritis: an umbrella review of high-quality systematic reviews. Phys Ther. 2007;87(12):1716–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181(8):488–93.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Ades AE. Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):875–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tu Y-K. Use of generalized linear mixed models for network meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):911–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tu Y-K. Linear mixed model approach to network meta-analysis for continuous outcomes in periodontal research. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(2):204–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A. Generalized multilevel structural equation modelling. Psychometrika. 2004;69(2):167–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A. Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects. J Econom. 2005;128(2):301–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Macfadyen CA, Acuin JM, Gamble CL. Topical antibiotics without steroids for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(4):CD004618.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public HealthNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations