Considerations in Reviewing Network Meta-Analyses of Heterogeneous Clinical Trial Designs: A Methodological Review in Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis
Clicks: 1
ID: 317397
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #27 of 38 articles by views in Crohn s & Colitis 360
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract and Key Words Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a common approach to synthesizing efficacy and safety data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Within the last five years, there has been an increase in the number of published NMAs in the clinical literature. One potential risk of this trend is the acceptance of NMA findings with translation into therapeutic decisions for daily clinical practice without first critically assessing the validity of the method’s core assumptions, including trial exchangeability and homogeneity. Methods We use the recent surge in NMAs of advanced therapies for Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) as a case study to illustrate the risks of overly permissive interpretation practices toward NMA methods and findings. We first highlight the potential violations of core NMA assumptions posed by known sources of heterogeneity across trials in CD and UC, and then outline several methodological strategies, ranging from data handling techniques to meta-regression, that can help to address or mitigate these violations. Results We put forward a checklist for users of NMAs to aid the interpretation of their results in the context of both methods and study inclusion/exclusion. Conclusions While NMAs offer important insights into the relative treatment effects of different therapies and useful guidance to healthcare decision-makers, it is important that readers and users of NMA publications carefully review and critically evaluate the methods and results to ensure potential biases introduced by cross-trial heterogeneity are sufficiently mitigated and transparently documented, and that the results of any given NMA are interpreted within the context of the wider literature.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7164825163
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Christopher Ma, Eric B. Collins, Si‐Tien Wang, Yixi Teng, Warren Stevens, Remo Panaccione, Dolly Sharma, Namita Joshi, Pierre A. Morisset, Raja Atreya, Gil Melmed |
| Journal | Crohn s & Colitis 360 |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/crocol/otag050
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.