Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Description of methods to derive indirect and mixed estimates.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Description of statistical methods used to evaluate the consistency assumption.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Figure 1.

Flow chart of identified networks.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Number of meta-analysis articles with full and star networks published between 1997–2012.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Figure 3.

Number of meta-analysis articles with full and star networks published by journal.

BMC: BioMed Central BMJ: British Medical Journal CDSR: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews CMRO: Current Medical Research & Opinion HTA: Health Technology Assessment JCE: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Table 3.

Structural characteristics of full and star networks.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Characteristics of the primary outcomes and their measures in full and star networks published until 12/2012.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Characteristics of the treatment comparisons in full and star networks published until 12/2012.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Methods employed to synthesise data in full and star networks published until 12/2012.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Figure 4.

Number of published networks by year (1997–2012) and the Network Meta-Analysis method.

Networks that used more than one method are included in all relevant categories.

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Table 7.

Statistical methods used to evaluate consistency in 151 full networks published until 12/2012.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Figure 5.

Number of published full networks by year (1997–2012) and the method employed to examine inconsistency.

Appropriate statistical methods are presented in Table 2. Networks that used more than one method are included in all relevant categories.

More »

Figure 5 Expand