Abstract:The reliability of the results of network meta-analysis (NMA) lies in the plausibility of key assumption of transitivity. This assumption implies that the effect modifiers' distribution is similar across treatment comparisons. Transitivity is statistically manifested through the consistency assumption which suggests that direct and indirect evidence are in agreement. Several methods have been suggested to evaluate consistency. A popular approach suggests adding inconsistency factors to the NMA model. We follow a different direction by describing each inconsistency factor with a candidate covariate whose choice relies on variable selection techniques. Our proposed method, Stochastic Search Inconsistency Factor Selection (SSIFS), evaluates the consistency assumption both locally and globally, by applying the stochastic search variable selection method to determine whether the inconsistency factors should be included in the model. The posterior inclusion probability of each inconsistency factor quantifies how likely is a specific comparison to be inconsistent. We use posterior model odds or the median probability model to decide on the importance of inconsistency factors. Differences between direct and indirect evidence can be incorporated into the inconsistency detection process. A key point of our proposed approach is the construction of a reasonable "informative" prior concerning network consistency. The prior is based on the elicitation of information derived historical data from 201 published network meta-analyses. The performance of our proposed method is evaluated in two published network meta-analyses. The proposed methodology is publicly available in an R package called ssifs, developed and maintained by the authors of this work.

Conflict diagnostics for evidence synthesis in a multiple testing framework

Combining support for hypotheses over heterogeneous studies with Bayesian Evidence Synthesis: A simulation study

Bayesian evidence synthesis as a flexible alternative to meta-analysis: A simulation study and empirical demonstration

New Evidence Combination Method Based on Redistribution of Global Conflict

Value of Information: Sensitivity Analysis and Research Design in Bayesian Evidence Synthesis

Conflict-redistribution DSmT and New Methods Dealing with Conflict among Evidences

Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute

Synthesizing cross-design evidence and cross-format data using network meta-regression

An Improved Method for Conflict Evidence Synthesis

Evidence Synthesis and Linkage for Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Tests: Preliminary Good Practice Recommendations

Novel approach for measuring the conflict between evidence

Real Effect or Bias? Good Practices for Evaluating the Robustness of Evidence From Comparative Observational Studies Through Quantitative Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding

A New Fast Combination Method of Conflict Evidences Based on Model Modification

A Bayesian Bias-Adjusted Random-Effects Model for Synthesizing Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions.

Inconsistency identification in network meta-analysis via stochastic search variable selection

ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLM

Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods

A Modified Approach to Conflict Management from the Perspective of Non-Conflicting Element Set.

A robust Bayesian bias-adjusted random effects model for consideration of uncertainty about bias terms in evidence synthesis

Analysing Multiple Epidemic Data Sources

Influence analyses of "designs" for evaluating inconsistency in network meta-analysis