方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 基于元回归的快速综述× | 网络荟萃分析× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域≠ | 科学计量学 | 证据综合 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 2000s–2010s (convergence of rapid review and meta-regression) | 2002 |
| 提出者≠ | Meta-regression: Simon Thompson & Stephen Sharp (1999); Rapid review methodology: Cochrane, WHO, and health technology assessment bodies (2000s onward) | Lumley (2002) |
| 类型≠ | Quantitative evidence synthesis variant | Method |
| 开创性文献≠ | Thompson, S. G., & Sharp, S. J. (1999). Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: A comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 18(20), 2693–2708. DOI ↗ | Lumley, T. (2002). Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine, 21(16), 2313–2324. DOI ↗ |
| 别名≠ | rapid review with meta-regression, accelerated meta-regression review, rapid synthesis with meta-regression, RRMR | Mixed Treatment Comparison, MTC, Indirect Comparison Meta-Analysis |
| 相关≠ | 5 | 1 |
| 摘要≠ | A meta-regression-based rapid review is an accelerated evidence synthesis that combines the time-efficient protocols of a rapid review with meta-regression analysis to identify which study-level or population-level characteristics explain variability in effect sizes across included studies. By streamlining search and screening steps without sacrificing the explanatory power of regression modeling, this approach delivers actionable heterogeneity insights under decision-making time constraints. | Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a systematic method for comparing multiple interventions simultaneously within a single analytical framework, incorporating both direct evidence (head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (comparisons via common comparators). First formalized by Lumley in 2002, NMA allows researchers to rank treatments and quantify comparative effectiveness even when some treatment pairs have never been directly studied. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|