연구동향 분석

일관성 가정 검증이 불가능한 개방형 네트워크 메타분석 결과의 신뢰성 평가 방법 개발

윤정화 2020년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 일관성 가정 검증이 불가능한 개방형 네트워크 메타분석 결과의 신뢰성 평가 방법 개발' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 의료과학 약
  • Network meta-analysis
  • consistency assumption
  • data imputation
  • inconsistency
  • open-loop network
  • sensitivity analysis
  • 개방형 네트워크
  • 네트워크-메타분석
  • 민감도 분석
  • 비일관성
  • 일관성 가정
  • 자료산입법
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
335 0

0.0%

' 일관성 가정 검증이 불가능한 개방형 네트워크 메타분석 결과의 신뢰성 평가 방법 개발' 의 참고문헌

  • 경제성평가지침 및 자료작성 요령
    건강보험심사평가원 [2011]
  • White I : Consistency and inconsistency in network meta ? analysis : concepts and models for multi ? arm studies
    3 ( 2 ) :98-110 . [2012]
  • Welton NJ : RFP Topic : Use of Network Meta-analysis to Inform Clinical Parameters in Economic Evaluations
    [2015]
  • Welton NJ : Addressing between ? study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons : application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non ? rheumatic atrial fibrillation
    28 ( 14 ) :1861-1881 [2009]
  • Velanovich VJG : Efficacy of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication vs transoral incisionless fundoplication or proton pump inhibitors in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease : a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    154 ( 5 ) :1298-1308. e1297 . [2018]
  • Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions : empirical evidence from published meta-analyses
    326 ( 7387 ) :472 . [2003]
  • Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment
    26 ( 9 ) :753-767 [2008]
  • The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    50 ( 6 ) :683-691 [1997]
  • The PRISMA statement extension for systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis : PRISMA-NMA .
    147 ( 6 ) :262-266 . [2016]
  • SimultaneousComparison of multiple treatments :Combining direct and indirect evidence
    331 ( 7521 ) :897 . [2005]
  • Sensitivity of treatment recommendations to bias in network meta ? analysis
    181 ( 3 ) :843-867 [2018]
  • Population Adjustment Methods for IndirectComparisons : A Review of National Institute for Health andCare Excellence Technology Appraisals
  • NICE DSU technical support document 18 : methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE
    [2016]
  • Mulani PM : Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials
    28 ( 10 ) :935-945 . [2010]
  • Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
    327 ( 7414 ) :557-560 [2003]
  • Mamolo CJFO : A comparative evaluation of gemtuzumab ozogamicin+ daunorubicin-cytarabine and other treatments for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia .
    15 ( 6 ) :663-681 .
  • Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta ? analysis : a two ? stage approach
    2 ( 1 ) :43-60 . [2011]
  • JC : Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making : report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices :
    2011 , 14 ( 4
  • Ishak KJ : No head-to-head trial ? Simulate the missing arms .
    28 ( 10 ) :957-967 . [2010]
  • Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis ? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers
    11 ( 1 ) :159 . [2013]
  • Intravenous and inhaled milrinone in adult cardiac surgery patients : A pairwise and network meta-analysis
    33 ( 3 ) :663-673 . [2019]
  • Green S : Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions
    vol . 4 [2011]
  • Gelman A : R2WinBUGS : a package for running WinBUGS from R. Journal of Statistical software
    12 ( 3 ) :1-16 . [2005]
  • Extending methods for investigating the relationship between treatment effect and baseline risk from pairwise meta ? analysis to network meta ? analysis
    32 ( 5 ) :752-771 . [2013]
  • Evaluation of networks of randomized trials
    17 ( 3 ) :279-301 . [2008]
  • Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions : a network meta-epidemiological study
    42 ( 4 ) :1120-1131 . [2013]
  • Coyle D : Indirect evidence : indirect treatment .
    [2009]
  • Consistency and inconsistency in network meta ? analysis : model estimation using multivariate meta ? regression
    3 ( 2 ) :111-125 . [2012]
  • Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis
    159 ( 2 ) :130-137 . [2013]
  • Comparison of non-insulin antidiabetic agents as an add-on drug to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes : a network meta-analysis
    8 ( 1 ) :4095 . [2018]
  • Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants : a multiple-treatments meta-analysis .
    373 ( 9665 ) :746-758 . [2009]
  • Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons
    23 ( 20 ) :3105-3124 [2004]
  • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 .
    5 ( 2 ) : S38 . [2011]
  • Clarke AJPo : Comparative efficacy and safety of licensed treatments for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer : A systematic review and network meta-analysis
    13 ( 7 ) : e0199575 . [2018]
  • Characteristics of networks of interventions : a description of a database of 186 published networks
    9 ( 1 ) . [2014]
  • Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta ? analysis
    15 ( 24 ) :2733-2749 . [1996]
  • Bahk JHJA : Pharmacological interventions for protecting renal function after cardiac surgery : a Bayesian network meta ? analysis of comparative effectiveness
    73 ( 8 ) :1019-1031 . [2018]
  • Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons
    101 ( 474 ) :447-459 . [2006]
  • Ades A : NICE DSU technical support document 2 : a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    [2011]
  • Ades A : NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4 : Inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials
    [2011]
  • Ades A : Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency
    63 ( 8 ) :875-882 [2010]
  • Ades A : Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta ? analysis
    29 ( 7 ? 8 ) :932-944 [2010]
  • A threshold analysis assessed the credibility of conclusions from network meta-analysis
    80:68-76 [2016]
  • A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered
    62 ( 8 ) :857-864 . [2009]
  • 49. Hasselblad V: Meta-analysis of multitreatment studies. Medical Decision Making 1998, 18(1):37-43.
  • 48. Team RC: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria; 2015. In.; 2015.
  • 46. Rubin DB: Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys, vol. 81: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
  • 45. Rubin DB: Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American statistical Association 1996, 91(434):473-489.
  • 28. Committee PBA: Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee 2016.
  • 26. NIoHaCE N: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE 2013.
  • 24. Drugs CAf, Health Ti: Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. In.: Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017.
  • 17. 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. Research synthesis methods 2012, 3(2):80-97.
  • 11. Lumley T: Network meta?analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in medicine 2002, 21(16):2313-2324.