手法を比較
選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。
| ネットワークベースのメタアナリシス× | Umbrella Review× | |
|---|---|---|
| 分野≠ | 科学計量学 | エビデンス統合 |
| 系統 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 提唱年≠ | 2002 (Lumley); refined 2008–2012 | 2009 |
| 提唱者≠ | Thomas Lumley (statistical framework); Georgia Salanti (SUCRA and ranking methods) | Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017) |
| 種類≠ | Quantitative evidence synthesis | Framework |
| 原典≠ | Lumley, T. (2002). Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine, 21(16), 2313–2324. DOI ↗ | Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. DOI ↗ |
| 別名≠ | NMA, network meta-analysis, mixed-treatment comparison, multiple-treatments meta-analysis | Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews |
| 関連≠ | 5 | 2 |
| 概要≠ | Network-based Meta-analysis (NMA) extends conventional pairwise meta-analysis by simultaneously synthesizing evidence across a network of two or more competing treatments, including pairs that have never been compared head-to-head in a single trial. By combining direct and indirect evidence within a coherent statistical model, NMA produces relative effect estimates for all treatment pairs and generates a probabilistic ranking of which treatment performs best on the outcome of interest. | An umbrella review is a systematic synthesis of multiple systematic reviews addressing overlapping or related research questions, typically on the same topic or intervention. Also called a 'review of reviews' or 'overview of reviews,' umbrella reviews consolidate evidence when two or more high-quality systematic reviews exist on the same clinical question. Grant and Booth (2009) formally categorized this methodology; Shea et al. (2017) developed AMSTAR-2, the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of included reviews. Umbrella reviews are essential when numerous systematic reviews produce conflicting conclusions, when rapid synthesis of evidence is needed for policy or clinical guidance, or when evidence has accumulated faster than any single systematic review can capture. |
| ScholarGateデータセット ↗ |
|
|