How do network meta-analyses address intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence: a systematic survey
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
ObjectivesTo describe how systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) NMA approach addressed intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence.DesignSystematic survey.Data sourcesMedline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from September 2014 to October 2022.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews of randomised controlled trials with aggregate data NMAs that used the GRADE NMA approach for assessing certainty of evidence.Data extraction and synthesisWe documented how reviewers described methods for addressing intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence, how often they rated down for intransitivity and their explanations for rating down.ResultsOf the 268 eligible systematic reviews, 44.8% (120/268) mentioned intransitivity when describing methods for assessing the certainty of evidence. Of these, 28.3% (34/120) considered effect modifiers and from this subset, 67.6% (23/34) specified the effect modifiers; however, no systematic review noted how they chose the effect modifiers. 15.0% (18/120) mentioned looking for differences between the direct comparisons that inform the indirect estimate. No review specified a threshold for difference in effect modifiers between the direct comparisons that would lead to rating down for intransitivity. Reviewers noted rating down indirect evidence for intransitivity in 33.1% of systematic reviews, and noted intransitivity for network estimates in 23.0% of reviews. Authors provided an explanation for rating down for intransitivity in 59.6% (31/52) of the cases in which they rated down. Of the 31 in which they provided an explanation, 74.2% (23/31) noted they detected differences in effect modifiers and 67.7% (21/31) specified in what effect modifiers they detected differences.ConclusionsA third of systematic reviews with NMAs using the GRADE approach rated down for intransitivity. Limitations in reporting of methods to address intransitivity proved considerable. Whether the problem is that reviewers neglected to address rating down for transitivity at all, or whether they did consider but not report, is not clear. At minimum systematic reviews with NMAs need to improve their reporting practices regarding intransitivity; it may well be that they need to improve their practice in transitivity assessment. How to best address intransitivity may remain unclear for many reviewers thus additional GRADE guidance providing practical instructions for addressing intransitivity may be desirable.
