[1] |
LumleyT. Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313‐2324. |
[2] |
LuG, AdesAE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105‐3124. |
[3] |
LuG, AdesAE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101(474):12‐459. · Zbl 1119.62354 |
[4] |
CrequitP, TrinquartL, YavchitzA, et al. Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up‐to‐date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer. BMC Med. 2016;14:8. |
[5] |
CrequitP, ChaimaniA, YavchitzA, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of second‐line treatments for advanced non‐small cell lung cancer with wild‐type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):193. |
[6] |
NikolakopoulouA, MavridisD, FurukawaTA, et al. Living network meta‐analysis compared with pairwise meta‐analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study. BMJ. 2018;360:k585. |
[7] |
VickersAD, WinfreeKB, CuyunCG, et al. Relative efficacy of interventions in the treatment of second‐line non‐small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):353. |
[8] |
DiasS, SuttonAJ, AdesAE, WeltonNJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):607‐617. |
[9] |
TrinquartL, JacotJ, ConnerSC, PorcherR. Comparison of treatment effects measured by the Hazard ratio and by the ratio of restricted mean survival times in oncology randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15):1813‐1819. |
[10] |
RahmanR, FellG, VentzS, et al. Deviation from the proportional hazards assumption in randomized phase 3 clinical trials in oncology: prevalence, associated factors, and implications. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(21):6339‐6345. |
[11] |
OuwensMJ, PhilipsZ, JansenJP. Network meta‐analysis of parametric survival curves. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(3-4):258‐271. |
[12] |
CopeS, ChanK, JansenJP. Multivariate network meta‐analysis of survival function parameters. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):443‐456. |
[13] |
JansenJP. Network meta‐analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:61. |
[14] |
WikstenA, HawkinsN, PiephoHP, GsteigerS. Nonproportional hazards in network meta‐analysis: efficient strategies for model building and analysis. Value Health. 2020;23(7):918‐927. |
[15] |
FreemanSC, CarpenterJR. Bayesian one‐step IPD network meta‐analysis of time‐to‐event data using Royston‐Parmar models. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(4):451‐464. |
[16] |
PakK, UnoH, KimDH, et al. Interpretability of cancer clinical trial results using restricted mean survival time as an alternative to the Hazard ratio. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1692‐1696. |
[17] |
WeirIR, MarshallGD, SchneiderJI, et al. Interpretation of time‐to‐event outcomes in randomized trials: an online randomized experiment. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(1):96‐102. |
[18] |
PetitC, BlanchardP, PignonJP, LuezaB. Individual patient data network meta‐analysis using either restricted mean survival time difference or hazard ratios: is there a difference? a case study on locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinomas. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):96. |
[19] |
WeirIR, TianL, TrinquartL. Multivariate meta‐analysis model for the difference in restricted mean survival times. Biostatistics. 2019;22:82‐96. |
[20] |
AchanaFA, CooperNJ, BujkiewiczS, et al. Network meta‐analysis of multiple outcome measures accounting for borrowing of information across outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:92. |
[21] |
American cancer socity‐lung cancer; 2019. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung‐cancer.html. |
[22] |
AuliacJB, ChouaidC, GreillierL, et al. Randomized open‐label non‐comparative multicenter phase II trial of sequential erlotinib and docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer after failure of first‐line chemotherapy: GFPC 10.02 study. Lung Cancer. 2014;85(3):415‐419. |
[23] |
HanJY, LeeSH, YooNJ, et al. A randomized phase II study of gefitinib plus simvastatin versus gefitinib alone in previously treated patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(6):1553‐1560. |
[24] |
KimY, ChoE, SymS, et al. Randomized Phase II Study of Pemetrexed Versus Gefitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer. Chicaogo, IL: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2014. |
[25] |
DiasS, AdesA, WeltonNJ, et al. Network Meta‐Analysis for Decision‐Making. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2018. |
[26] |
RileyRD, PriceMJ, JacksonD, et al. Multivariate meta‐analysis using individual participant data. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(2):157‐174. |
[27] |
BurkeDL, BujkiewiczS, RileyRD. Bayesian bivariate meta‐analysis of correlated effects: impact of the prior distributions on the between‐study correlation, borrowing of strength, and joint inferences. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(2):428‐450. |
[28] |
CaldwellDM, AdesAE, HigginsJP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. Br Med J. 2005;331(7521):897‐900. |
[29] |
PepeMS, FlemingTR. Weighted Kaplan‐Meier statistics: a class of distance tests for censored survival data. Biometrics. 1989;45:497‐507. · Zbl 0715.62087 |
[30] |
PepeMS, FlemingEJ. Weighted Kaplan‐Meier statistics: large sample and optimality considerations. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B(Methodol). 1991;53:341‐352. · Zbl 0800.62218 |
[31] |
TianL, FuH, RubergSJ, UnoH, WeiLJ. Efficiency of two sample tests via the restricted mean survival time for analyzing event time observations. Biometrics. 2018;74(2):694‐702. · Zbl 1414.62479 |
[32] |
JacksonD, BujkiewiczS, LawM, RileyRD, WhiteIR. A matrix‐based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta‐analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects. Biometrics. 2018;74(2):548‐556. · Zbl 1415.62108 |
[33] |
LuG, AdesA. Modeling between‐trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics. 2009;10(4):792‐805. · Zbl 1437.62544 |
[34] |
WeiY, HigginsJP. Bayesian multivariate meta‐analysis with multiple outcomes. Stat Med. 2013;32(17):2911‐2934. |
[35] |
BarnardJ, McCullochR, MengX. Modeling covariance matrices in terms of standard deviations and correlations, with application to shrinkage. Stat Sin. 2000;10(4):1281‐1311. · Zbl 0980.62045 |
[36] |
BrooksSP, GelmanA. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat. 1998;7(4):434‐455. |
[37] |
CasellaG, BergerRL. Statistical Inference. 2nd ed.Belmon, CA: Duxbury; 2002. |
[38] |
TrinquartL, IoannidisJP, ChatellierG, RavaudP. A test for reporting bias in trial networks: simulation and case studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:112. |
[39] |
PestineE, StokesA, TrinquartL. Representation of obese participants in obesity‐related cancer randomized trials. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(7):1582‐1587. |
[40] |
BarianiGM, deCelis FerrariAC, PrecivaleM, et al. Sample size calculation in oncology trials: quality of reporting and implications for clinical cancer research. Am J Clin Oncol. 2015;38(6):570‐574. |
[41] |
LuezaB, RotoloF, BonastreJ, PignonJP, MichielsS. Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta‐analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:37. |
[42] |
BenderR, AugustinT, BlettnerM. Generating survival times to simulate cox proportional hazards models. Stat Med. 2005;24(11):1713‐1723. |
[43] |
ShepherdFA, DanceyJ, RamlauR, et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum‐based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(10):2095‐2103. |
[44] |
BorghaeiH, Paz‐AresL, HornL, et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1627‐1639. |
[45] |
UhlmannL, JensenK, KieserM. Hypothesis testing in Bayesian network meta‐analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):128. |
[46] |
SeideSE, RoverC, FriedeT. Likelihood‐based random‐effects meta‐analysis with few studies: empirical and simulation studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):16. |
[47] |
ThorlundK, ThabaneL, MillsEJ. Modelling heterogeneity variances in multiple treatment comparison meta‐analysis—are informative priors the better solution?BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:2. |
[48] |
DoneganS, WilliamsonT, D’AkessandroU, et al. Assessing key assumptions of network meta‐analysis: a review of methods. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(4):291‐323. |
[49] |
DiasS, WeltonNJ, SuttonAJ, CaldwellDM, LuG, AdesAE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):641‐656. |
[50] |
RileyRD, ThompsonJR, AbramsKR. An alternative model for bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis when the within‐study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008;9(1):172‐186. · Zbl 1274.62861 |
[51] |
EfthimiouO, MavridisD, CiprianiA, LeuchtS, BagosP, SalantiG. An approach for modelling multiple correlated outcomes in a network of interventions using odds ratios. Stat Med. 2014;33(13):2275‐2287. |
[52] |
HongH, FuH, PriceKL, CarlinBP. Incorporation of individual‐patient data in network meta‐analysis for multiple continuous endpoints, with application to diabetes treatment. Stat Med. 2015;34(20):2794‐2819. |
[53] |
HongH, ChuH, ZhangJ, CarlinBP. A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):6‐22. |
[54] |
VeronikiAA, VasiliadisHS, HigginsJP, SalantiG. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):332‐345. |
[55] |
Gajic‐VeljanoskiO, CheungAM, BayoumiAM, TomlinsonG. The choice of a noninformative prior on between‐study variance strongly affects predictions of future treatment effect. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(3):356‐368. |
[56] |
LambertPC, SuttonAJ, BurtonPR, AbramsKR, JonesDR. How vague is vague? a simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Stat Med. 2005;24(15):2401‐2428. |
[57] |
IshakKJ, PlattRW, JosephL, HanleyJA. Impact of approximating or ignoring within‐study covariances in multivariate meta‐analyses. Stat Med. 2008;27(5):670‐686. |
[58] |
HuD, WangC, O’ConnorAM. A likelihood ratio test for the homogeneity of between‐study variance in network meta‐analysis. 2021. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs‐224184/v1 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs‐224184/v1 |
[59] |
RileyRD, AbramsKR, SuttonAJ, LambertPC, ThompsonJR. Bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis and the estimation of between‐study correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:3. |
[60] |
MaddenLV, PiephoHP, PaulPA. Statistical models and methods for network meta‐analysis. Phytopathology. 2016;106(8):792‐806. |
[61] |
TurnerRM, Dominguez‐IslasCP, JacksonD, et al. Incorporating external evidence on between‐trial heterogeneity in network meta‐analysis. Stat Med. 2019;38(8):1321‐1335. |
[62] |
vanHouwelingenHC, ArendsLR, StijnenT. Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression. Stat Med. 2002;21(4):589‐624. |
[63] |
BujkiewiczS, ThompsonJR, SuttonAJ, et al. Multivariate meta‐analysis of mixed outcomes: a Bayesian approach. Stat Med. 2013;32(22):3926‐3943. |
[64] |
GuyotP, AdesAE, OuwensMJ, WeltonNJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan‐Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9. |