Methods for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes using individual patient data: a case study in acupuncture for chronic pain

Table 5 IPD NMA results for models (1), (3) and (4), EQ-5D preference score endpoint

IPD NMA results: EQ-5D preference scores endpoint^a			Model 1, ANCOVA, change in EQ-5D scores, adjusted for baseline	Model 3, change in EQ-5D scores, without baseline adjustment	Model 4, follow-up EQ-5D score, without baseline adjustment
IPD NMA results: EQ-5D preference scores endpoint^a			Median MCMC posterior sample (95 % CrI)	Median MCMC posterior sample (95 % CrI)	Median MCMC posterior sample (95 % CrI)
Relative treatment effects	Osteoarthritis of the knee	SHAM vs UC	0.057 (0.013, 0.095)	0.077 (0.033, 0.118)	0.051 (0.008, 0.094)
		ACU vs UC	0.079 (0.042, 0.114)	0.093 (0.054, 0.129)	0.074 (0.035, 0.113)
		ACU vs SHAM	0.022 (-0.014, 0.060)	0.016 (-0.022, 0.054)	0.023 (-0.014, 0.065)
	Headache	SHAM vs UC	0.052 (0.010, 0.095)	0.044 (0.002, 0.086)	0.052 (0.007, 0.098)
		ACU vs UC	0.056 (0.021, 0.092)	0.057 (0.023, 0.090)	0.054 (0.016, 0.092)
		ACU vs SHAM	0.004 (-0.035, 0.042)	0.013 (-0.025, 0.051)	0.002 (-0.038, 0.040)
	Musculoskeletal	SHAM vs UC	0.059 (0.017, 0.101)	0.062 (0.019, 0.104)	0.054 (0.010, 0.099)
		ACU vs UC	0.082 (0.047, 0.116)	0.084 (0.048, 0.119)	0.080 (0.044, 0.118)
		ACU vs SHAM	0.023 (-0.008, 0.053)	0.022 (-0.011, 0.055)	0.026 (-0.006, 0.056)
	Between-study variance		0.001 (0, 0.003)	0.001 (0, 0.003)	0.001 (0, 0.003)
	Total residual deviance ^b		15,850 (15,480; 16,230)	16,990 (16,570; 17,420)	15,370 (15,010; 15,730)
	Deviance information criterion ^c		-6,420.4	-69.9	-3,823.7

^aUC usual care, SHAM sham acupuncture, ACU acupuncture, Headache group headache, migraine and TTH, Musculoskeletal group neck, shoulder and low back pain, OAK osteoarthritis of the knee
^bCompare to approx. 14,800 observations
^cDeviance information criterion (DIC) is a statistical measure of model fit and model comparison. Models should be preferred with smaller DIC

ISSN: 1471-2288