Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Using structural equation modeling for network meta-analysis

Authors: Yu-Kang Tu, Yun-Chun Wu

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Network meta-analysis overcomes the limitations of traditional pair-wise meta-analysis by incorporating all available evidence into a general statistical framework for simultaneous comparisons of several treatments. Currently, network meta-analyses are undertaken either within the Bayesian hierarchical linear models or frequentist generalized linear mixed models. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical method originally developed for modeling causal relations among observed and latent variables. As random effect is explicitly modeled as a latent variable in SEM, it is very flexible for analysts to specify complex random effect structure and to make linear and nonlinear constraints on parameters. The aim of this article is to show how to undertake a network meta-analysis within the statistical framework of SEM.

Methods

We used an example dataset to demonstrate the standard fixed and random effect network meta-analysis models can be easily implemented in SEM. It contains results of 26 studies that directly compared three treatment groups A, B and C for prevention of first bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. We also showed that a new approach to network meta-analysis based on the technique of unrestricted weighted least squares (UWLS) method can also be undertaken using SEM.

Results

For both the fixed and random effect network meta-analysis, SEM yielded similar coefficients and confidence intervals to those reported in the previous literature. The point estimates of two UWLS models were identical to those in the fixed effect model but the confidence intervals were greater. This is consistent with results from the traditional pairwise meta-analyses. Comparing to UWLS model with common variance adjusted factor, UWLS model with unique variance adjusted factor has greater confidence intervals when the heterogeneity was larger in the pairwise comparison. The UWLS model with unique variance adjusted factor reflects the difference in heterogeneity within each comparison.

Conclusion

SEM provides a very flexible framework for univariate and multivariate meta-analysis, and its potential as a powerful tool for advanced meta-analysis is still to be explored.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897–900.
3.
Li T, Puhan M, Vedula S, Singh S, Dickersin K. Group TAHNM-aMMW: network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med. 2011;9(1):79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Tu Y-K. Faggion CM: a primer on network meta-analysis for dental research. ISRN Dent. 2012;2012:10.
5.
Cipriani A, Higgins JPT, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(2):130–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: introduction. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(5):597–606.CrossRef
7.
Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Lu G, Welton NJ, Higgins JPT, White IR, Ades AE. Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: a two-stage approach. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(1):43–60.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for Pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(5):607–17.CrossRef
10.
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.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Jones B, Roger J, Lane PW, Lawton A, Fletcher C, Cappelleri JC, Tate H. Moneuse P, on behalf of psi health technology special interest group ESs-t: statistical approaches for conducting network meta-analysis in drug development. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(6):523–31.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Song F, Altman DG, Glenny A-M, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ: Br Med J. 2003;326(7387):472.CrossRef
14.
Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny A-M, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. Br Med J. 2009;338(7700):b1147.CrossRef
15.
Glenny A-M, Altman D, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks J, D'amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood A. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(26):1–148.CrossRefPubMed
16.
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.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hasselblad V. Meta-analysis of multitreatment studies. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(1):37–43.CrossRef
18.
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.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Senn S, Gavini F, Magrez D, Scheen A. Issues in performing a network meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(2):169–89.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Hong H, Carlin BP, Shamliyan TA, Wyman JF, Ramakrishnan R, Sainfort F, Kane RL. Comparing Bayesian and Frequentist approaches for multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(5):702–14.CrossRef
21.
Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101(474):447–59.CrossRef
22.
Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
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. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97.CrossRefPubMed
24.
White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JPT. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):111–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Tu Y-K. Use of generalized linear mixed models for network meta-analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(7):911–8.CrossRef
26.
Lu G, Ades AE. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics. 2009;10(4):792–805.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Franchini AJ, Dias S, Ades AE, Jansen JP, Welton NJ. Accounting for correlation in network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):142–60.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Cheung M. Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychol Methods. 2014;19(2):211–29.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Cheung MW. A model for integrating fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-analyses into structural equation modeling. Psychol Methods. 2008;13(3):182–202.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Cheung MWL. Multivariate meta-analysis as structural equation models. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2013;20(3):429–54.CrossRef
31.
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.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Tu YK. Using generalized linear mixed models to evaluate inconsistency within a network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2015;18(8):1120–5.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Tu Y-K. Node-splitting generalized linear mixed models for evaluation of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2016;19(8):957–63.CrossRef
34.
Piepho HP, Williams ER, Madden LV. The use of two-way linear mixed models in multitreatment meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2012;68(4):1269–77.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–37.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17(3):279–301.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Hong H, Chu HT, Zhang J, Carlin BP. A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):6–22.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Orsini N, Bellocco R, Greenland S. Generalized least squares for trend estimation of summarized dose-response data. Stata J. 2006;6(1):40–57.
39.
Pagliaro L, D'Amico G, Sörensen TIA, Lebrec D, Burroughs AK, Morabito A, Tiné F, Politi F, Traina M. Prevention of first bleeding in CirrhosisA meta-analysis of randomized trials of nonsurgical treatment. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(1):59–70.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford publications; 2015.
41.
Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S. Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. London: Chapman & Hall; 2004.CrossRef
42.
Cheung M, Chan W. Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: a two-stage approach. Psychol Methods. 2005;10(1):40–64.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Cheung MW-L: metaSEM: An R Package for Meta-Analysis using Structural Equation Modeling. Front Psychol 2015, 5.
44.
Cheung MWL. Fixed-effects meta-analyses as multiple-group structural equation models. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2010;17(3):481–509.CrossRef
45.
Cheung MW-L: Meta-analysis: a structural equation modeling approach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
46.
Greco T, Edefonti V, Biondi-Zoccai G, Decarli A, Gasparini M, Zangrillo A, Landoni G. A multilevel approach to network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework. Contemp clinical trials. 2015;42:51–9.CrossRef
47.
Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2015;34(13):2116–27.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-regression. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):19–42.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Mawdsley D, Higgins JPT, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Accounting for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using a multiplicative model-an empirical study. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):43–52.CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
Chaimani A, Vasiliadis HS, Pandis N, Schmid CH, Welton NJ, Salanti G. Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;
52.
White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2009;9(1):40–56.
53.
Cheung MW-L. Implementing restricted maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation models. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2013;20(1):157–67.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using structural equation modeling for network meta-analysis
Authors
Yu-Kang Tu
Yun-Chun Wu
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0390-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Validity of mobile electronic data capture in clinical studies: a pilot study in a pediatric population

Research article

Centralising and optimising decentralised stroke care systems: a simulation study on short-term costs and effects

Correspondence

Practical partnered research to improve weight loss among overweight/obese veterans: lessons from the trenches

Research article

Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory

Research article

Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment

Research article

Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review