Como interpretar una revisión sistemática con comparaciones múltiples o Network Metanalisis

Autores/as

  • Gonzalo Labarca Departamento de Medicina Interna, Complejo Asistencial Víctor Ríos Ruiz. Los Ángeles. Chile.
  • Juan P Uribe Division of Thoracic Surgery and Interventional Pulmonology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.
  • Adnan Majid Division of Thoracic Surgery and Interventional Pulmonology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
  • Erik Folch Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. United States
  • Sebastian Fernandez-Bussy Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Florida. United States

Palabras clave:

Evidence-Based Medicine, Meta-Analysis, Methods, Network Meta-Analysis

Resumen

Systematic reviews evaluating multiple interventions can be useful in different clinical situations. However, some concerns arise when more than two interventions are compared and there is a paucity of good quality randomized clinical trials. A novel statistical method based on indirect comparisons, called network meta-analysis (NMA), can be a useful approach to find a clinical answer when multiple interventions are evaluated for the same outcome or comparator. The aim of this review is to describe the main characteristics and provide a user guide for a critical analysis of NMA focusing on its three main domains, namely homogeneity, transitivity and consistency.

Descargas

Publicado

2020-01-27

Cómo citar

Labarca, G., Uribe, J. P., Majid, A., Folch, E., & Fernandez-Bussy, S. (2020). Como interpretar una revisión sistemática con comparaciones múltiples o Network Metanalisis. Revista Médica De Chile, 148(1). Recuperado a partir de https://revistamedicadechile.cl/index.php/rmedica/article/view/7530

Número

Sección

Medicina Basada en Evidencia

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a

1 2 > >>