Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Software

BUGSnet: an R package to facilitate the conduct and reporting of Bayesian network Meta-analyses

Authors: Audrey Béliveau, Devon J. Boyne, Justin Slater, Darren Brenner, Paul Arora

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Several reviews have noted shortcomings regarding the quality and reporting of network meta-analyses (NMAs). We suspect that this issue may be partially attributable to limitations in current NMA software which do not readily produce all of the output needed to satisfy current guidelines.

Results

To better facilitate the conduct and reporting of NMAs, we have created an R package called “BUGSnet” (Bayesian inference Using Gibbs Sampling to conduct a Network meta-analysis). This R package relies upon Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) to conduct Bayesian NMA using a generalized linear model. BUGSnet contains a suite of functions that can be used to describe the evidence network, estimate a model and assess the model fit and convergence, assess the presence of heterogeneity and inconsistency, and output the results in a variety of formats including league tables and surface under the cumulative rank curve (SUCRA) plots. We provide a demonstration of the functions contained within BUGSnet by recreating a Bayesian NMA found in the second technical support document composed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit (NICE-DSU). We have also mapped these functions to checklist items within current reporting and best practice guidelines.

Conclusion

BUGSnet is a new R package that can be used to conduct a Bayesian NMA and produce all of the necessary output needed to satisfy current scientific and regulatory standards. We hope that this software will help to improve the conduct and reporting of NMAs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri 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: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–28.CrossRef Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri 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: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–28.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Efthimiou O, Debray TP, van Valkenhoef G, Trelle S, Panayidou K, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, Shang A, Salanti G. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(3):236–63.CrossRef Efthimiou O, Debray TP, van Valkenhoef G, Trelle S, Panayidou K, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, Shang A, Salanti G. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(3):236–63.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Lee AW. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(2):138–43.CrossRef Lee AW. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(2):138–43.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g1741.CrossRef Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g1741.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hutton B, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Schmid C, Thorlund K, Mills E, Catala-Lopez F, Turner L, Altman DG, et al. The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92508.CrossRef Hutton B, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Schmid C, Thorlund K, Mills E, Catala-Lopez F, Turner L, Altman DG, et al. The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92508.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;338:b1147.CrossRef Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;338:b1147.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, Tudur-Smith C. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e11054.CrossRef Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, Tudur-Smith C. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e11054.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kovic B, Zoratti MJ, Michalopoulos S, Silvestre C, Thorlund K, Thabane L. Deficiencies in addressing effect modification in network meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:47–56.CrossRef Kovic B, Zoratti MJ, Michalopoulos S, Silvestre C, Thorlund K, Thabane L. Deficiencies in addressing effect modification in network meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:47–56.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Zarin W, Veroniki AA, Nincic V, Vafaei A, Reynen E, Motiwala SS, Antony J, Sullivan SM, Rios P, Daly C, et al. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):3.CrossRef Zarin W, Veroniki AA, Nincic V, Vafaei A, Reynen E, Motiwala SS, Antony J, Sullivan SM, Rios P, Daly C, et al. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):3.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, Salanti G. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):157–73.CrossRef Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, Salanti G. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):157–73.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, 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(11):777–84.CrossRef Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, 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(11):777–84.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ades A, Caldwell DM, Reken S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Dias S. NICE DSU technical support document 7: evidence synthesis of treatment efficacy in decision making: a reviewer’s checklist. Decision Support Unit London UK. 2012;27905719. Ades A, Caldwell DM, Reken S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Dias S. NICE DSU technical support document 7: evidence synthesis of treatment efficacy in decision making: a reviewer’s checklist. Decision Support Unit London UK. 2012;27905719.
13.
go back to reference Neupane B, Richer D, Bonner AJ, Kibret T, Beyene J. Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115065.CrossRef Neupane B, Richer D, Bonner AJ, Kibret T, Beyene J. Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115065.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Xu C, Niu Y, Wu J, Gu H, Zhang C. Software and package applicating for network meta-analysis: a usage-based comparative study. J Evid Based Med. 2018;11(3):176–83.CrossRef Xu C, Niu Y, Wu J, Gu H, Zhang C. Software and package applicating for network meta-analysis: a usage-based comparative study. J Evid Based Med. 2018;11(3):176–83.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(4):285–99.CrossRef van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(4):285–99.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Brown S, Hutton B, Clifford T, Coyle D, Grima D, Wells G, Cameron C. A Microsoft-excel-based tool for running and critically appraising network meta-analyses--an overview and application of NetMetaXL. Systematic Reviews. 2014;3:110.CrossRef Brown S, Hutton B, Clifford T, Coyle D, Grima D, Wells G, Cameron C. A Microsoft-excel-based tool for running and critically appraising network meta-analyses--an overview and application of NetMetaXL. Systematic Reviews. 2014;3:110.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials; 2011. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials; 2011.
18.
go back to reference Plummer M: JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing: 2003: Vienna; 2003. Plummer M: JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing: 2003: Vienna; 2003.
20.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11:159.CrossRef Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11:159.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.CrossRef Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Dias S, Ades A, Welton NJ, Jansen JP, Sutton AJ. Network meta-analysis for decision-making. Hoboken: Wiley; 2018.CrossRef Dias S, Ades A, Welton NJ, Jansen JP, Sutton AJ. Network meta-analysis for decision-making. Hoboken: Wiley; 2018.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Warn DE, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1601–23.CrossRef Warn DE, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1601–23.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):332–45.CrossRef Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):332–45.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Donegan S, Williamson P, D'Alessandro U, Tudur Smith C. Assessing key assumptions of network meta-analysis: a review of methods. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(4):291–323.CrossRef Donegan S, Williamson P, D'Alessandro U, Tudur Smith C. Assessing key assumptions of network meta-analysis: a review of methods. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(4):291–323.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials; 2011. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials; 2011.
27.
go back to reference Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.CrossRef Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment; 2011. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment; 2011.
29.
go back to reference Jaime Caro J, Eddy DM, Kan H, Kaltz C, Patel B, Eldessouki R, Briggs AH. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–82.CrossRef Jaime Caro J, Eddy DM, Kan H, Kaltz C, Patel B, Eldessouki R, Briggs AH. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–82.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Schwarzer G. Meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7(3):40–5. Schwarzer G. Meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7(3):40–5.
31.
go back to reference Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;369(9557):201–7.CrossRef Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;369(9557):201–7.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Tricco AC, Straus SE, Siontis GCM, Egger M, Salanti G. Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study. BMJ. 2018;360:k585.CrossRef Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Tricco AC, Straus SE, Siontis GCM, Egger M, Salanti G. Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study. BMJ. 2018;360:k585.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
BUGSnet: an R package to facilitate the conduct and reporting of Bayesian network Meta-analyses
Authors
Audrey Béliveau
Devon J. Boyne
Justin Slater
Darren Brenner
Paul Arora
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0829-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue