RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1548755
Die Netzwerk-Metaanalyse in der Kieferorthopädie: Die nächste Ebene der Evidenzsynthese? [*]
Network Meta-analysis in Orthodontics: The Next Level of Evidence Synthesis?Publikationsverlauf
Publikationsdatum:
18. Mai 2015 (online)
Zusammenfassung
Klinische Entscheidungen sollten auf der Grundlage von Ergebnissen qualitativ hochwertiger klinischer Studien und systematischer Übersichtsarbeiten getroffen werden. Herkömmliche Übersichtsarbeiten vergleichen, wenn möglich, die Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen derselben Behandlungsmaßnahme miteinander, um präzisere Aussagen zur Effektivität des jeweiligen Verfahrens treffen zu können. Gibt es allerdings mehrere Behandlungsmaßnahmen für ein und dasselbe Problem, wird es schwierig zu bestimmen, welche davon die Beste ist, da nur Studien ausgewertet werden, die dieselben Interventionen miteinander vergleichen. Die aktuellen Fortschritte bei der Synthese von Daten im Rahmen einer Netzwerk-Metaanalyse (network meta-analysis, NMA) ermöglichen die gemeinsame Untersuchung der Wirkung unterschiedlicher Behandlungsmaßnahmen für ein Problem und die Beurteilung ihrer Effektivität. Die NMA ist zwar ein neues Verfahren in der Zahnmedizin und der Kieferorthopädie, das jedoch ein wichtiges Hilfsmittel für eine evidenzbasierte Kieferorthopädie sein kann.
Abstract
Clinical decision should be based on findings from high quality clinical trials and systematic reviews. Traditional systematic reviews, where applicable, combine individual trial results from the same interventions to give more precise estimates of treatment effects. However, in the presence of multiple interventions for the same condition it is difficult to determine which the best treatment is as treatment effects are combined only from trials using the same comparisons. Recent advancements in data synthesis under the network meta-analysis (NMA) framework have allowed to assess the effect of various interventions for the same condition simultaneously and has enabled ranking of those interventions in terms of efficiency. NMA is very new in dentistry and orthodontics and can be an important tool in evidence based orthodontics.
* Dieser Artikel wurde erstmals veröffentlicht in: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: S152–S163. Der Abdruck erfolgt mit freundlicher Genehmigung.
-
Literatur
- 1 Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 2001; 323: 334-336
- 2 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA. (eds.) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S. (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Online unter: www.cochrane-handbook.org
- 3 Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR et al. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159: 130-137
- 4 Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005; 331: 897-900
- 5 Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE et al. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2008; 17: 279-301
- 6 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: 80-97
- 7 Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3105-3124
- 8 Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D et al. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med 2009; 28: 1861-1881
- 9 Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 326: 472
- 10 Tu YK, Needleman I, Chambrone L et al. A Bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration and their combination therapies. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39: 303-314
- 11 Faggion Jr CM, Chambrone L, Listl S et al. Network meta-analysis for evaluating interventions in implant dentistry: the case of peri-implantitis treatment. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15: 576-588
- 12 Walsh T, Worthington HV, Glenny AM et al. Fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; CD007868
- 13 White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J 2009; 9: 40-56
- 14 Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK et al. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 98-110
- 15 White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D et al. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 111-125
- 16 Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One 2013; 8: e76654
- 17 Pandis N, Fleming PS, Spineli LM et al. Initial orthodontic alignment effectiveness with self-ligating and conventional appliances: a network meta-analysis in practice. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: S152-S163