Number of studies: k = 34
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 34
Number of treatments: n = 12
Number of designs: d = 11
Number of networks: 2
Details on subnetworks:
subnetwork k m n
1 5 5 4
2 29 29 8
# Filter data for subnet 1sr1 <-tibble(treat1 = net_con$treat1,treat2 = net_con$treat2,subnet = net_con$subnet) |>filter(subnet ==1)# Display comparison tablesr1
Code
# Unique treatments in subnet 1unique_treat1 <- sr1$treat1 |>unique()unique_treat2 <- sr1$treat2 |>unique()# Combination of all unique treatmentstrat_sr1 <-unique(c(unique_treat1, unique_treat2))print(trat_sr1)
[1] "Mnt" "Bal" "Cry" "WlNi"
Code
# Total number of treatmentslength(trat_sr1)
[1] 4
Code
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 1pw_pim_sr1 <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr1 & treat2 %in% trat_sr1)# Number of comparisons in subnet 1nrow(pw_pim_sr1)
[1] 5
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 1nma_sr1 <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_pim_sr1,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD", # can be "MD" or "SMD"ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr1)
Number of studies: k = 5
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 5
Number of observations: o = 232
Number of treatments: n = 4
Number of designs: d = 3
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
Bal -1.2500 [-2.2645; -0.2355] -2.41 0.0157
Cry -6.5000 [-8.0223; -4.9777] -8.37 < 0.0001
Mnt 0.0100 [-1.6642; 1.6842] 0.01 0.9907
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0.4690; tau = 0.6849; I^2 = 58.5% [0.0%; 88.2%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 4.82 2 0.0898
Within designs 4.82 2 0.0898
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Original data:
treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Albers2018 Mnt WlNi 0.0100 0.5105
Buskila2001 Bal WlNi -1.7000 0.4818
Neumann2001 Bal WlNi -0.2100 0.5836
Ozkurt2011 Bal WlNi -1.8500 0.6816
Kiyak2022 Cry WlNi -6.5000 0.3664
Number of treatment arms per study:
narms
Albers2018 2
Buskila2001 2
Neumann2001 2
Ozkurt2011 2
Kiyak2022 2
Results (random effects model):
treat1 treat2 MD 95% CI
Albers2018 Mnt WlNi 0.0100 [-1.6642; 1.6842]
Buskila2001 Bal WlNi -1.2500 [-2.2645; -0.2355]
Neumann2001 Bal WlNi -1.2500 [-2.2645; -0.2355]
Ozkurt2011 Bal WlNi -1.2500 [-2.2645; -0.2355]
Kiyak2022 Cry WlNi -6.5000 [-8.0223; -4.9777]
Number of studies: k = 5
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 5
Number of observations: o = 232
Number of treatments: n = 4
Number of designs: d = 3
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
Bal -1.2500 [-2.2645; -0.2355] -2.41 0.0157
Cry -6.5000 [-8.0223; -4.9777] -8.37 < 0.0001
Mnt 0.0100 [-1.6642; 1.6842] 0.01 0.9907
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0.4690; tau = 0.6849; I^2 = 58.5% [0.0%; 88.2%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 4.82 2 0.0898
Within designs 4.82 2 0.0898
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Code
# Forest plotforest(nma_sr1)
Forest plot of treatment effects for Subnet 1
Code
# Pairwise comparison table with confidence intervalsrender_league_table(nma_sr1)
Table 1: League table (random effects model) for Subnet 1
Q statistics to assess homogeneity / consistency
Q df p-value
Total 4.82 2 0.0898
Within designs 4.82 2 0.0898
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Design-specific decomposition of within-designs Q statistic
Design Q df p-value
WlNi:Bal 4.82 2 0.0898
Q statistic to assess consistency under the assumption of
a full design-by-treatment interaction random effects model
Q df p-value tau.within tau2.within
Between designs 0.00 0 -- 0.6849 0.4690
Code
# Node-splitting analysis to detect inconsistencysplit_sr1 <-netsplit(nma_sr1, show ="all")render_netsplit_table(split_sr1)
Table 2: Node-splitting analysis for Subnet 1
comparison
TE
seTE
lower
upper
statistic
p
Bal:Cry
5.25
0.9334
3.4206
7.0794
5.6248
0.0000
Bal:Mnt
-1.26
0.9988
-3.2176
0.6976
-1.2615
0.2071
Bal:WlNi
-1.25
0.5176
-2.2645
-0.2355
-2.4149
0.0157
Cry:Mnt
-6.51
1.1545
-8.7728
-4.2472
-5.6387
0.0000
Cry:WlNi
-6.50
0.7767
-8.0223
-4.9777
-8.3688
0.0000
Mnt:WlNi
0.01
0.8542
-1.6642
1.6842
0.0117
0.9907
Code
# Forest plot of node-splittingplot_netsplit_forest(split_sr1)
Figure 1: Forest plot of node-splitting for Subnet 1
Code
# Heatmapnetheat(nma_sr1)
Code
# Funnel plotfunnel(nma_sr1, order ="WlNi", )
Funnel plot for Subnet 1 (P | Im)
Select the procedures performed
Important
The second subnet is more robust, containing 29 studies, 29 comparisons and 8 treatments. This is the main analysis network.
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 2pw_pim_sr2 <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr2 & treat2 %in% trat_sr2)# Number of comparisons in subnet 2nrow(pw_pim_sr2)
[1] 29
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_pim_sr2$studlab))
[1] 29
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 2nma_sr2 <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_pim_sr2,n1 = N1,n2 = N2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD",ref ="PlaSh"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr2)
Number of studies: k = 29
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 29
Number of observations: o = 1120
Number of treatments: n = 8
Number of designs: d = 8
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'PlaSh'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
Acu -0.0623 [-1.4286; 1.3039] -0.09 0.9288
CBT -1.3373 [-2.8846; 0.2099] -1.69 0.0903
Elec -2.8500 [-4.8888; -0.8112] -2.74 0.0061
MfT -0.4900 [-2.2935; 1.3135] -0.53 0.5944
PbT -2.3066 [-3.5777; -1.0355] -3.56 0.0004
PlaSh . . . .
rTMS -1.2245 [-1.8797; -0.5692] -3.66 0.0002
tDCS -1.1471 [-1.7012; -0.5930] -4.06 < 0.0001
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0.5615; tau = 0.7494; I^2 = 68% [50.7%; 79.2%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 68.71 22 < 0.0001
Within designs 68.09 21 < 0.0001
Between designs 0.62 1 0.4322
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within networkpw_psh <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr & treat2 %in% trat_sr)# Number of comparisons in networknrow(pw_psh)
[1] 134
Code
# Fit NMA model for networknma_sr <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_psh,n1 = N1,n2 = N2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD",ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr)
Number of studies: k = 120
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 134
Number of observations: o = 7226
Number of treatments: n = 23
Number of designs: d = 53
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
Acu -1.8647 [-3.0272; -0.7022] -3.14 0.0017
AeET -1.3185 [-2.2337; -0.4033] -2.82 0.0047
AqET -1.9221 [-2.9103; -0.9339] -3.81 0.0001
Bal -2.9560 [-4.5388; -1.3731] -3.66 0.0003
CBT -0.9412 [-1.4623; -0.4201] -3.54 0.0004
Cry -1.9000 [-4.5027; 0.7027] -1.43 0.1525
DryN -3.7642 [-5.3555; -2.1729] -4.64 < 0.0001
Elec -2.1317 [-3.5514; -0.7119] -2.94 0.0033
FlET -0.4010 [-1.4761; 0.6740] -0.73 0.4647
HtT -1.3205 [-3.8145; 1.1736] -1.04 0.2994
MasT -2.1591 [-3.2932; -1.0250] -3.73 0.0002
McT -1.4311 [-2.0998; -0.7624] -4.19 < 0.0001
MfT -2.3585 [-3.8527; -0.8644] -3.09 0.0020
MiET -0.8528 [-1.6332; -0.0723] -2.14 0.0322
Mnt -1.9319 [-3.1969; -0.6668] -2.99 0.0028
PBT -3.1322 [-4.6425; -1.6218] -4.06 < 0.0001
PlaSh -0.6731 [-1.5936; 0.2474] -1.43 0.1518
Plt -2.2524 [-3.7652; -0.7396] -2.92 0.0035
ReET -1.4418 [-2.5334; -0.3502] -2.59 0.0096
rTMS -1.8191 [-3.1357; -0.5025] -2.71 0.0068
tDCS -2.0562 [-3.5255; -0.5870] -2.74 0.0061
WBV -1.8112 [-3.5279; -0.0945] -2.07 0.0387
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 1.4538; tau = 1.2057; I^2 = 86.8% [84.5%; 88.7%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 793.25 105 < 0.0001
Within designs 512.58 67 < 0.0001
Between designs 280.67 38 < 0.0001
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Number of studies: k = 29
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 33
Number of treatments: n = 14
Number of designs: d = 17
Number of networks: 3
Details on subnetworks:
subnetwork k m n
1 23 27 8
2 1 1 2
3 5 5 4
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 1pw_plg_sr1 <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr1 & treat2 %in% trat_sr1)# Number of comparisons in subnet 1nrow(pw_plg_sr1)
[1] 27
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 1nma_sr1 <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_plg_sr1,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD", # can be "MD" or "SMD"ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr1)
Number of studies: k = 23
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 27
Number of observations: o = 1481
Number of treatments: n = 8
Number of designs: d = 13
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
AeET -1.3392 [-2.1608; -0.5177] -3.19 0.0014
AqET -1.4499 [-2.3412; -0.5586] -3.19 0.0014
CBT -1.2983 [-2.4184; -0.1783] -2.27 0.0231
FlET -0.2322 [-1.7516; 1.2873] -0.30 0.7646
McT -1.1006 [-2.4584; 0.2571] -1.59 0.1121
MiET -1.3820 [-2.6824; -0.0816] -2.08 0.0373
ReET -2.1117 [-3.5656; -0.6579] -2.85 0.0044
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0.8509; tau = 0.9224; I^2 = 73.4% [58.1%; 83.1%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 67.60 18 < 0.0001
Within designs 56.21 10 < 0.0001
Between designs 11.40 8 0.1803
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
# Combination of all unique treatmentstrat_sr2 <-unique(c(unique_treat1_sr2, unique_treat2_sr2))print(trat_sr2)
[1] "DryN" "MasT"
Code
# Total number of treatmentslength(trat_sr2)
[1] 2
Code
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 2pw_plg_sr2 <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr2 & treat2 %in% trat_sr2)# Number of comparisons in subnet 2nrow(pw_plg_sr2)
[1] 1
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_plg_sr2$studlab))
[1] 1
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 2nma_sr2 <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_plg_sr2,n1 = N1,n2 = N2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD",ref ="MasT"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr2)
Number of studies: k = 1
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 1
Number of observations: o = 59
Number of treatments: n = 2
Number of designs: d = 1
Random effects model
Treatment estimate ('DryN' vs 'MasT'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
DryN -1.0600 [-3.2020; 1.0820] -0.97 0.3321
MasT . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity:
tau^2 = NA; tau = NA
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
Original data:
treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Castro-Sanchez2011 DryN MasT -1.0600 1.0929
Number of treatment arms per study:
narms
Castro-Sanchez2011 2
Results (random effects model):
treat1 treat2 MD 95% CI
Castro-Sanchez2011 DryN MasT -1.0600 [-3.2020; 1.0820]
Number of studies: k = 1
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 1
Number of observations: o = 59
Number of treatments: n = 2
Number of designs: d = 1
Random effects model
Treatment estimate ('DryN' vs 'MasT'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
DryN -1.0600 [-3.2020; 1.0820] -0.97 0.3321
MasT . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity:
tau^2 = NA; tau = NA
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
Select the procedures performed
Important
the third subnet contains 5 studies, 5 comparisons and 4 treatments.
# Combination of all unique treatmentstrat_sr3 <-unique(c(unique_treat1_sr3, unique_treat2_sr3))print(trat_sr3)
[1] "MfT" "Acu" "rTMS" "PlaSh"
Code
# Total number of treatmentslength(trat_sr3)
[1] 4
Code
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 3pw_plg_sr3 <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr3 & treat2 %in% trat_sr3)# Number of comparisons in subnet 3nrow(pw_plg_sr3)
[1] 5
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_plg_sr3$studlab))
[1] 5
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 3nma_sr3 <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_plg_sr3,n1 = N1,n2 = N2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD",ref ="PlaSh"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr3)
Number of studies: k = 5
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 5
Number of observations: o = 336
Number of treatments: n = 4
Number of designs: d = 3
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'PlaSh'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
Acu -0.0800 [-1.9811; 1.8211] -0.08 0.9343
MfT -1.1807 [-2.5901; 0.2286] -1.64 0.1006
PlaSh . . . .
rTMS -0.5561 [-1.7178; 0.6056] -0.94 0.3481
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0.4444; tau = 0.6666; I^2 = 53.1% [0.0%; 86.5%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 4.26 2 0.1188
Within designs 4.26 2 0.1188
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Q statistics to assess homogeneity / consistency
Q df p-value
Total 4.26 2 0.1188
Within designs 4.26 2 0.1188
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Design-specific decomposition of within-designs Q statistic
Design Q df p-value
PlaSh:rTMS 3.53 1 0.0603
PlaSh:MfT 0.73 1 0.3925
Q statistic to assess consistency under the assumption of
a full design-by-treatment interaction random effects model
Q df p-value tau.within tau2.within
Between designs 0.00 0 -- 0.6666 0.4444
Code
# Node-splitting analysis to detect inconsistencysplit_sr3 <-netsplit(nma_sr3, show ="all")render_netsplit_table(split_sr3)
Table 10: Node-splitting analysis for Subnet 3
comparison
TE
seTE
lower
upper
statistic
p
Acu:MfT
1.1007
1.2075
-1.2658
3.4673
0.9116
0.3620
Acu:PlaSh
-0.0800
0.9700
-1.9811
1.8211
-0.0825
0.9343
Acu:rTMS
0.4761
1.1367
-1.7519
2.7041
0.4188
0.6753
MfT:PlaSh
-1.1807
0.7191
-2.5901
0.2286
-1.6420
0.1006
MfT:rTMS
-0.6246
0.9319
-2.4511
1.2018
-0.6703
0.5027
rTMS:PlaSh
-0.5561
0.5927
-1.7178
0.6056
-0.9382
0.3481
Code
# Forest plot of node-splittingplot_netsplit_forest(split_sr3)
Figure 5: Forest plot of node-splitting for Subnet 3
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within networkpw_qim <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr & treat2 %in% trat_sr)# Number of comparisons in networknrow(pw_qim)
[1] 20
Code
# Fit NMA model for networknma_sr <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_qim,n1 = N1,n2 = N2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD",ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr)
Number of studies: k = 20
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 20
Number of observations: o = 886
Number of treatments: n = 11
Number of designs: d = 10
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
Bal -15.0330 [-25.0820; -4.9840] -2.93 0.0034
CBT -1.1924 [-25.0968; 22.7120] -0.10 0.9221
Cry -30.1200 [-42.4084; -17.8316] -4.80 < 0.0001
HtT -24.1300 [-35.8403; -12.4197] -4.04 < 0.0001
McT -7.1969 [-15.4843; 1.0906] -1.70 0.0887
Mnt 1.6600 [-13.9760; 17.2960] 0.21 0.8352
PbT -3.0576 [-23.6075; 17.4923] -0.29 0.7706
PlaSh 8.4076 [-10.1330; 26.9483] 0.89 0.3741
rTMS -0.1422 [-19.7652; 19.4808] -0.01 0.9887
tDCS -5.7600 [-21.9299; 10.4099] -0.70 0.4851
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 30.3434; tau = 5.5085; I^2 = 63% [29.0%; 80.7%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 27 10 0.0026
Within designs 27 10 0.0026
Between designs 0 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within networkpw_qsh <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr & treat2 %in% trat_sr)# Number of comparisons in networknrow(pw_qsh)
[1] 138
Code
# Fit NMA model for networknma_sr <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_qsh,n1 = N1,n2 = N2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD",ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr)
Number of studies: k = 118
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 138
Number of observations: o = 8059
Number of treatments: n = 21
Number of designs: d = 52
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
Acu -22.5548 [-36.8555; -8.2541] -3.09 0.0020
AeET -13.8785 [-21.6321; -6.1249] -3.51 0.0005
AqET -15.2378 [-24.3866; -6.0889] -3.26 0.0011
Bal -16.5359 [-30.3793; -2.6924] -2.34 0.0192
CBT -9.5513 [-14.4435; -4.6591] -3.83 0.0001
DryN -24.8737 [-43.8033; -5.9441] -2.58 0.0100
Elec -19.7168 [-39.3637; -0.0699] -1.97 0.0492
FlET -7.3847 [-17.5890; 2.8195] -1.42 0.1561
MasT -16.9246 [-28.5617; -5.2875] -2.85 0.0044
McT -13.2800 [-18.9144; -7.6456] -4.62 < 0.0001
MfT -22.2476 [-39.9999; -4.4952] -2.46 0.0140
MiET -9.4771 [-15.8232; -3.1311] -2.93 0.0034
Mnt -11.4771 [-25.5926; 2.6384] -1.59 0.1110
PbT -19.1555 [-36.1579; -2.1531] -2.21 0.0272
PlaSh -6.2080 [-16.1437; 3.7278] -1.22 0.2207
Plt -21.3857 [-37.6485; -5.1230] -2.58 0.0100
ReET -20.3952 [-30.2320; -10.5584] -4.06 < 0.0001
rTMS -13.0707 [-27.6199; 1.4784] -1.76 0.0783
tDCS -10.5738 [-28.4976; 7.3500] -1.16 0.2476
WBV -12.9142 [-25.5164; -0.3120] -2.01 0.0446
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 154.5184; tau = 12.4305; I^2 = 92.7% [91.7%; 93.6%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 1479.09 108 < 0.0001
Within designs 645.69 67 < 0.0001
Between designs 833.40 41 < 0.0001
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Number of studies: k = 28
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 32
Number of treatments: n = 11
Number of designs: d = 16
Number of networks: 2
Details on subnetworks:
subnetwork k m n
1 3 3 3
2 25 29 8
# Filter data for subnet 1sr1 <-tibble(treat1 = net_con$treat1,treat2 = net_con$treat2,subnet = net_con$subnet) |>filter(subnet ==1)# Display comparison tablesr1
Code
# Unique treatments in subnet 1unique_treat1 <- sr1$treat1 |>unique()unique_treat2 <- sr1$treat2 |>unique()# Combination of all unique treatmentstrat_sr1 <-unique(c(unique_treat1, unique_treat2))print(trat_sr1)
[1] "MfT" "rTMS" "PlaSh"
Code
# Total number of treatmentslength(trat_sr1)
[1] 3
Code
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 1pw_qlg_sr1 <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr1 & treat2 %in% trat_sr1)# Number of comparisons in subnet 1nrow(pw_qlg_sr1)
[1] 3
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 1nma_sr1 <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_qlg_sr1,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD", # can be "MD" or "SMD"ref ="PlaSh"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr1)
Number of studies: k = 3
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 3
Number of observations: o = 235
Number of treatments: n = 3
Number of designs: d = 2
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'PlaSh'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
MfT -5.5600 [-13.2259; 2.1059] -1.42 0.1552
PlaSh . . . .
rTMS -3.7055 [ -8.8789; 1.4679] -1.40 0.1604
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0; tau = 0; I^2 = 0%
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 0.65 1 0.4209
Within designs 0.65 1 0.4209
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Q statistics to assess homogeneity / consistency
Q df p-value
Total 0.65 1 0.4209
Within designs 0.65 1 0.4209
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Design-specific decomposition of within-designs Q statistic
Design Q df p-value
PlaSh:rTMS 0.65 1 0.4209
Q statistic to assess consistency under the assumption of
a full design-by-treatment interaction random effects model
Q df p-value tau.within tau2.within
Between designs 0.00 0 -- 0 0
Code
# Node-splitting analysis to detect inconsistencysplit_sr1 <-netsplit(nma_sr1, show ="all")render_netsplit_table(split_sr1)
Table 16: Node-splitting analysis for Subnet 1
comparison
TE
seTE
lower
upper
statistic
p
MfT:PlaSh
-5.5600
3.9112
-13.2259
2.1059
-1.4215
0.1552
MfT:rTMS
-1.8545
4.7186
-11.1027
7.3937
-0.3930
0.6943
rTMS:PlaSh
-3.7055
2.6396
-8.8789
1.4679
-1.4038
0.1604
Code
# Forest plot of node-splittingplot_netsplit_forest(split_sr1)
Figure 8: Forest plot of node-splitting for Subnet 1
Code
# Heatmapnetheat(nma_sr1)
Code
# Funnel plotfunnel(nma_sr1, order ="PlaSh", )
Funnel plot for Subnet 1 (Q | Lg)
Select the procedures performed
Important
The second subnet is more robust, containing 28 studies, 29 comparisons and 8 treatments. This is the main analysis network.
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 2pw_qlg_sr2 <- pw %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr2 & treat2 %in% trat_sr2)# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_qlg_sr2$studlab))
[1] 25
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 2nma_sr2 <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_qlg_sr2,n1 = N1,n2 = N2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,sm ="MD",ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr2)
Number of studies: k = 25
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 29
Number of observations: o = 1598
Number of treatments: n = 8
Number of designs: d = 14
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
MD 95% CI z p-value
AeET -11.8420 [-20.2902; -3.3937] -2.75 0.0060
AqET -13.9340 [-23.5710; -4.2969] -2.83 0.0046
CBT -13.9298 [-27.5247; -0.3349] -2.01 0.0446
FlET -3.2089 [-18.5220; 12.1042] -0.41 0.6813
McT -19.8856 [-30.9618; -8.8093] -3.52 0.0004
MiET -22.9301 [-33.1470; -12.7131] -4.40 < 0.0001
ReET -12.6444 [-27.1692; 1.8804] -1.71 0.0880
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 110.5191; tau = 10.5128; I^2 = 86.4% [80.6%; 90.5%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 147.45 20 < 0.0001
Within designs 60.27 11 < 0.0001
Between designs 87.18 9 < 0.0001
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
# Read datadata_alg <-read_excel("data/Banco de Dados_Rstudio (1).xlsx", sheet ="A | Lg")# Transform to contrast-basedpw_alg <-pairwise(treat =list(Treat1, Treat2, Treat3),event =list(dp1, dp2, dp3), # observed events in each armn =list(nRT1, nRT2, nRT3), # total number of patients in each armstudlab = StudyID,data = data_alg,sm ="OR"# Medida de efeito (OR = Odds Ratio, pode ser "RR" ou "RD" se preferir))# Check network connectionsnet_con <-netconnection(pw_alg)net_con
Number of studies: k = 31
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 35
Number of treatments: n = 14
Number of designs: d = 18
Number of networks: 3
Details on subnetworks:
subnetwork k m n
1 26 30 8
2 1 1 2
3 4 4 4
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 1pw_sr1_alg <- pw_alg %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr1_alg & treat2 %in% trat_sr1_alg)# Number of comparisons in subnet 1nrow(pw_sr1_alg)
[1] 34
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_sr1_alg$studlab))
[1] 30
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 1nma_sr1_alg <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_sr1_alg,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))
Comparisons not considered in network meta-analysis:
studlab treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Etnier2009 MiET WlNi NA NA
Hakkinen2001 ReET WlNi NA NA
Sanudo2015 MiET WlNi NA NA
RodriguezDominguez2026 McT MiET NA NA
Code
# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr1_alg)
Number of studies: k = 26
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 30
Number of observations: o = 1925
Number of treatments: n = 8
Number of designs: d = 14
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
OR 95% CI z p-value
AeET 1.8903 [1.0918; 3.2727] 2.27 0.0230
AqET 1.5777 [0.7160; 3.4764] 1.13 0.2580
CBT 1.7576 [0.7874; 3.9231] 1.38 0.1686
FlET 4.4105 [1.4492; 13.4232] 2.61 0.0090
McT 1.2585 [0.5944; 2.6646] 0.60 0.5481
MiET 1.4524 [0.6782; 3.1105] 0.96 0.3368
ReET 2.0228 [0.8373; 4.8863] 1.57 0.1175
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0.0581; tau = 0.2410; I^2 = 9.9% [0.0%; 44.3%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 23.30 21 0.3280
Within designs 14.85 12 0.2496
Between designs 8.45 9 0.4895
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Note
These three studies were excluded from the model because they reported a standard deviation of zero, which makes division by zero impossible.
- Etnier2009: MiET vs WlNi
- Hakkinen2001: ReET vs WlNi
- Sanudo2015: MiET vs WlNi
# Filter data for subnet 2sr2_alg <-tibble(treat1 = net_con$treat1,treat2 = net_con$treat2,subnet = net_con$subnet) |>filter(subnet ==2)# Display comparison tablesr2_alg
Code
# Unique treatments in subnet 2unique_treat1_sr2_alg <- sr2_alg$treat1 |>unique()unique_treat2_sr2_alg <- sr2_alg$treat2 |>unique()# Combination of all unique treatmentstrat_sr2_alg <-unique(c(unique_treat1_sr2_alg, unique_treat2_sr2_alg))print(trat_sr2_alg)
[1] "DryN" "MasT"
Code
# Total number of treatmentslength(trat_sr2_alg)
[1] 2
Code
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 2pw_sr2_alg <- pw_alg %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr2_alg & treat2 %in% trat_sr2_alg)# Number of comparisons in subnet 2nrow(pw_sr2_alg)
[1] 1
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_sr2_alg$studlab))
[1] 1
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 2nma_sr2_alg <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_sr2_alg,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,ref ="MasT"# First treatment as reference)# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr2_alg)
Number of studies: k = 1
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 1
Number of observations: o = 64
Number of treatments: n = 2
Number of designs: d = 1
Random effects model
Treatment estimate ('DryN' vs 'MasT'):
OR 95% CI z p-value
DryN 0.6444 [0.1003; 4.1421] -0.46 0.6435
MasT . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity:
tau^2 = NA; tau = NA
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
Original data:
treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Castro-Sanchez2011 DryN MasT -0.4394 0.9493
Number of treatment arms per study:
narms
Castro-Sanchez2011 2
Results (random effects model):
treat1 treat2 OR 95% CI
Castro-Sanchez2011 DryN MasT 0.6444 [0.1003; 4.1421]
Number of studies: k = 1
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 1
Number of observations: o = 64
Number of treatments: n = 2
Number of designs: d = 1
Random effects model
Treatment estimate ('DryN' vs 'MasT'):
OR 95% CI z p-value
DryN 0.6444 [0.1003; 4.1421] -0.46 0.6435
MasT . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity:
tau^2 = NA; tau = NA
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
Select the procedures performed
Important
The third subnet contains 4 studies, 4 comparisons and 4 treatments.
# Filter data for subnet 3sr3_alg <-tibble(treat1 = net_con$treat1,treat2 = net_con$treat2,subnet = net_con$subnet) |>filter(subnet ==3)# Display comparison tablesr3_alg
Code
# Unique treatments in subnet 3unique_treat1_sr3_alg <- sr3_alg$treat1 |>unique()unique_treat2_sr3_alg <- sr3_alg$treat2 |>unique()# Combination of all unique treatmentstrat_sr3_alg <-unique(c(unique_treat1_sr3_alg, unique_treat2_sr3_alg))print(trat_sr3_alg)
[1] "MfT" "Acu" "rTMS" "PlaSh"
Code
# Total number of treatmentslength(trat_sr3_alg)
[1] 4
Code
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within subnet 3pw_sr3_alg <- pw_alg %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr3_alg & treat2 %in% trat_sr3_alg)# Number of comparisons in subnet 3nrow(pw_sr3_alg)
[1] 5
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_sr3_alg$studlab))
[1] 5
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 3nma_sr3_alg <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_sr3_alg,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,ref ="PlaSh"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))
Comparison not considered in network meta-analysis:
studlab treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Silva2025 rTMS PlaSh NA NA
Code
# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr3_alg)
Number of studies: k = 4
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 4
Number of observations: o = 295
Number of treatments: n = 4
Number of designs: d = 3
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'PlaSh'):
OR 95% CI z p-value
Acu 0.7683 [0.3521; 1.6766] -0.66 0.5079
MfT 1.0559 [0.4113; 2.7111] 0.11 0.9100
PlaSh . . . .
rTMS 0.5833 [0.1362; 2.4976] -0.73 0.4676
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0; tau = 0; I^2 = 0%
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 0.38 1 0.5363
Within designs 0.38 1 0.5363
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Original data:
treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Alfano2001 MfT PlaSh 0.2184 0.5493
Colbert1999 MfT PlaSh -0.4855 0.9968
Harris2005 Acu PlaSh -0.2636 0.3981
Mhalla2011 PlaSh rTMS 0.5390 0.7420
Number of treatment arms per study:
narms
Alfano2001 2
Colbert1999 2
Harris2005 2
Mhalla2011 2
Results (random effects model):
treat1 treat2 OR 95% CI
Alfano2001 MfT PlaSh 1.0559 [0.4113; 2.7111]
Colbert1999 MfT PlaSh 1.0559 [0.4113; 2.7111]
Harris2005 Acu PlaSh 0.7683 [0.3521; 1.6766]
Mhalla2011 PlaSh rTMS 1.7143 [0.4004; 7.3399]
Number of studies: k = 4
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 4
Number of observations: o = 295
Number of treatments: n = 4
Number of designs: d = 3
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'PlaSh'):
OR 95% CI z p-value
Acu 0.7683 [0.3521; 1.6766] -0.66 0.5079
MfT 1.0559 [0.4113; 2.7111] 0.11 0.9100
PlaSh . . . .
rTMS 0.5833 [0.1362; 2.4976] -0.73 0.4676
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0; tau = 0; I^2 = 0%
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 0.38 1 0.5363
Within designs 0.38 1 0.5363
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Code
# Forest plotforest(nma_sr3_alg)
Forest plot of treatment effects for Subnet 3 (A | Lg)
Code
# Pairwise comparison table with confidence intervalsrender_league_table(nma_sr3_alg)
Table 21: League table (random effects model) for Subnet 3 (A | Lg)
Q statistics to assess homogeneity / consistency
Q df p-value
Total 0.38 1 0.5363
Within designs 0.38 1 0.5363
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Design-specific decomposition of within-designs Q statistic
Design Q df p-value
PlaSh:MfT 0.38 1 0.5363
Q statistic to assess consistency under the assumption of
a full design-by-treatment interaction random effects model
Q df p-value tau.within tau2.within
Between designs 0.00 0 -- 0 0
Code
# Node-splitting analysis to detect inconsistencysplit_sr3_alg <-netsplit(nma_sr3_alg, show ="all")render_netsplit_table(split_sr3_alg)
Table 22: Node-splitting analysis for Subnet 3 (A | Lg)
comparison
TE
seTE
lower
upper
statistic
p
Acu:MfT
-0.3180
0.6245
-1.5419
0.9060
-0.5092
0.6106
Acu:PlaSh
-0.2636
0.3981
-1.0439
0.5168
-0.6620
0.5079
Acu:rTMS
0.2754
0.8421
-1.3751
1.9259
0.3271
0.7436
MfT:PlaSh
0.0544
0.4811
-0.8885
0.9973
0.1131
0.9100
MfT:rTMS
0.5934
0.8843
-1.1399
2.3267
0.6710
0.5022
rTMS:PlaSh
-0.5390
0.7420
-1.9933
0.9153
-0.7264
0.4676
Code
# Forest plot of node-splittingplot_netsplit_forest(split_sr3_alg)
Figure 11: Forest plot of node-splitting for Subnet 3 (A | Lg)
Code
# Heatmapnetheat(nma_sr3_alg)
Code
# Funnel plotfunnel(nma_sr3_alg,order ="PlaSh",)
Funnel plot for Subnet 3 (A | Lg)
Code
# Read datadata_aim <-read_excel("data/Banco de Dados_Rstudio (1).xlsx", sheet ="A | Im")|>mutate(nRT1 =as.numeric(nRT1),nRT2 =as.numeric(nRT2),dp1 =as.numeric(dp1),dp2 =as.numeric(dp2) ) |> tidyr::drop_na() # excliniodo as linhas com NA# Transform to contrast-basedpw_aim <-pairwise(treat =list(Treat1, Treat2),event =list(dp1, dp2), # observed events in each armn =list(nRT1, nRT2), # total number of patients in each armstudlab = StudyID,data = data_aim,sm ="OR"# Medida de efeito (OR = Odds Ratio, pode ser "RR" ou "RD" se preferir))# Check network connectionsnet_con <-netconnection(pw_aim)net_con
Number of studies: k = 14
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 14
Number of treatments: n = 8
Number of designs: d = 7
Number of networks: 1
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within networkpw_sr_aim <- pw_aim %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr_aim & treat2 %in% trat_sr_aim)# Number of comparisons in networknrow(pw_sr_aim)
[1] 28
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_sr_aim$studlab))
[1] 28
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 1nma_sr_aim <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_sr_aim,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))
Comparisons not considered in network meta-analysis:
studlab treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Boyer2014 rTMS PlaSh NA NA
Brietzke2019 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Buskila2001 Bal WlNi NA NA
Curatolo2017 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Fioravanti2007 Bal WlNi NA NA
Mendonça2011 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Neumann2001 Bal WlNi NA NA
Passard2007 rTMS PlaSh NA NA
Short2011 rTMS PlaSh NA NA
Stival2013 Acu PlaSh NA NA
Valle2009 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Forogh2021 rTMS tDCS NA NA
Caumo2023 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Betancur2025 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Code
# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr_aim)
Number of studies: k = 14
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 14
Number of observations: o = 698
Number of treatments: n = 8
Number of designs: d = 7
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
OR 95% CI z p-value
Acu 0.1924 [0.0065; 5.6813] -0.95 0.3400
Bal 4.5714 [0.4731; 44.1699] 1.31 0.1891
Elec 0.0425 [0.0006; 3.0969] -1.44 0.1489
McT 1.4655 [0.6439; 3.3355] 0.91 0.3624
PlaSh 0.7509 [0.0368; 15.3360] -0.19 0.8523
rTMS 0.6994 [0.0275; 17.8012] -0.22 0.8286
tDCS 1.0000 [0.0591; 16.9279] 0.00 1.0000
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0; tau = 0; I^2 = 0% [0.0%; 67.6%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 1.26 7 0.9895
Within designs 1.26 7 0.9895
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Note
These three studies were excluded from the model because they reported a standard deviation of zero, which makes division by zero impossible.
- Boyer2014: rTMS vs PlaSh
- Brietzke2019: tDCS vs PlaSh
- Buskila2001: Bal vs WlNi
- Curatolo2017: tDCS vs PlaSh
- Fioravanti2007: Bal vs WlNi
- Mendonça2011: tDCS vs PlaSh
- Neumann2001: Bal vs WlNi
- Passard2007: rTMS vs PlaSh
- Short2011: rTMS vs PlaSh
- Stival2013: Acu vs PlaSh
- Valle2009: tDCS vs PlaSh
- Forogh2021: rTMS vs tDCS
Q statistics to assess homogeneity / consistency
Q df p-value
Total 1.26 7 0.9895
Within designs 1.26 7 0.9895
Between designs 0.00 0 --
Design-specific decomposition of within-designs Q statistic
Design Q df p-value
PlaSh:rTMS 1.15 4 0.8867
PlaSh:tDCS 0.11 3 0.9905
Q statistic to assess consistency under the assumption of
a full design-by-treatment interaction random effects model
Q df p-value tau.within tau2.within
Between designs 0.00 0 -- 0 0
Code
# Node-splitting analysis to detect inconsistencysplit_sr_aim <-netsplit(nma_sr_aim, show ="all")render_netsplit_table(split_sr_aim)
Table 24: Node-splitting analysis for Subnet 1 (A | Im)
comparison
TE
seTE
lower
upper
statistic
p
Acu:Bal
-3.1678
2.0790
-7.2425
0.9070
-1.5237
0.1276
Acu:Elec
1.5102
1.7415
-1.9029
4.9234
0.8672
0.3858
Acu:McT
-2.0301
1.7774
-5.5137
1.4534
-1.1422
0.2534
Acu:PlaSh
-1.3614
0.7836
-2.8972
0.1743
-1.7375
0.0823
Acu:rTMS
-1.2904
0.9861
-3.2230
0.6423
-1.3086
0.1907
Acu:tDCS
-1.6479
0.9485
-3.5069
0.2111
-1.7374
0.0823
Acu:WlNi
-1.6479
1.7271
-5.0330
1.7372
-0.9541
0.3400
Bal:Elec
4.6780
2.4753
-0.1735
9.5294
1.8899
0.0588
Bal:McT
1.1376
1.2310
-1.2751
3.5503
0.9241
0.3554
Bal:PlaSh
1.8063
1.9257
-1.9680
5.5806
0.9380
0.3482
Bal:rTMS
1.8774
2.0166
-2.0751
5.8298
0.9310
0.3519
Bal:tDCS
1.5198
1.8500
-2.1062
5.1458
0.8215
0.4114
Bal:WlNi
1.5198
1.1573
-0.7484
3.7880
1.3133
0.1891
Elec:McT
-3.5404
2.2280
-7.9071
0.8263
-1.5891
0.1120
Elec:PlaSh
-2.8717
1.5552
-5.9198
0.1765
-1.8465
0.0648
Elec:rTMS
-2.8006
1.6664
-6.0668
0.4656
-1.6806
0.0928
Elec:tDCS
-3.1582
1.6445
-6.3813
0.0650
-1.9204
0.0548
Elec:WlNi
-3.1582
2.1881
-7.4467
1.1304
-1.4434
0.1489
McT:PlaSh
0.6687
1.5953
-2.4581
3.7955
0.4192
0.6751
McT:rTMS
0.7398
1.7039
-2.5999
4.0794
0.4342
0.6642
McT:tDCS
0.3822
1.5031
-2.5639
3.3283
0.2543
0.7993
McT:WlNi
0.3822
0.4196
-0.4402
1.2046
0.9109
0.3624
PlaSh:rTMS
0.0711
0.5986
-1.1022
1.2444
0.1187
0.9055
PlaSh:tDCS
-0.2865
0.5345
-1.3341
0.7611
-0.5360
0.5920
PlaSh:WlNi
-0.2865
1.5392
-3.3032
2.7302
-0.1861
0.8523
rTMS:tDCS
-0.3576
0.8025
-1.9305
1.2153
-0.4456
0.6559
rTMS:WlNi
-0.3576
1.6515
-3.5944
2.8793
-0.2165
0.8286
tDCS:WlNi
0.0000
1.4434
-2.8290
2.8290
0.0000
1.0000
Code
# Forest plot of node-splittingplot_netsplit_forest(split_sr_aim)
Figure 12: Forest plot of node-splitting for Subnet 1 (A | Im)
Code
# Heatmapnetheat(nma_sr_aim)
Code
# Funnel plotfunnel(nma_sr_aim,order ="WlNi",)
Funnel plot for Network (A | Im)
Code
# Read datadata_ash <-read_excel("data/Banco de Dados_Rstudio (1).xlsx", sheet ="A | Sh")|>mutate(nRT1 =as.numeric(nRT1),nRT2 =as.numeric(nRT2),dp1 =as.numeric(dp1),dp2 =as.numeric(dp2) ) # Transform to contrast-basedpw_ash <-pairwise(treat =list(Treat1, Treat2, Treat3),event =list(dp1, dp2, dp3), # observed events in each armn =list(nRT1, nRT2, nRT3), # total number of patients in each armstudlab = StudyID,data = data_ash,sm ="OR"# Medida de efeito (OR = Odds Ratio, pode ser "RR" ou "RD" se preferir))# Check network connectionsnet_con <-netconnection(pw_ash)net_con
Number of studies: k = 113
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 125
Number of treatments: n = 22
Number of designs: d = 43
Number of networks: 1
# Filter pairwise object only for comparisons within networkpw_sr_ash <- pw_ash %>%filter(treat1 %in% trat_sr_ash & treat2 %in% trat_sr_ash)# Number of comparisons in networknrow(pw_sr_ash)
[1] 161
Code
# Number of unique studieslength(unique(pw_sr_ash$studlab))
[1] 145
Code
# Fit NMA model for subnet 1nma_sr_ash <-netmeta( TE, seTE, treat1, treat2, studlab,data = pw_sr_ash,n1 = n1,n2 = n2,random =TRUE,common =FALSE,ref ="WlNi"# Reference treatment (change if you want another control))
Comparisons not considered in network meta-analysis:
studlab treat1 treat2 TE seTE
Bressan2008 AeET FlET NA NA
Brietzke2019 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Castro-Sanchez2019 DryN MasT NA NA
Castro-Sanchez2020 DryN Elec NA NA
Colbert1999 MfT PlaSh NA NA
daSilva2008 AqET WlNi NA NA
Evcik2002 Bal WlNi NA NA
Fonseca2019 AqET CBT NA NA
Garcia2006 CBT WlNi NA NA
Gomez-Hernandez2019 AeET MiET NA NA
Gowans2001 AqET WlNi NA NA
Harris2005 Acu PlaSh NA NA
Harte2013 Acu PlaSh NA NA
Kayo2012 AeET ReET NA NA
Kayo2012 AeET WlNi NA NA
Kayo2012 ReET WlNi NA NA
King2002 CBT McT NA NA
Mhalla2011 rTMS PlaSh NA NA
Oka2019 MfT PlaSh NA NA
Schachter2003 AeET WlNi NA NA
Sencan2004 AeET PlaSh NA NA
Sevimli2015 AeET AqET NA NA
Sevimli2015 AeET MiET NA NA
Sevimli2015 AqET MiET NA NA
To2017 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Torres2015 MnT CBT NA NA
Ugurlu2017 Acu PlaSh NA NA
Valim2003 AeET FlET NA NA
Vallejo2015 CBT WlNi NA NA
Izquierdo-Alventosa2020 MiET WlNi NA NA
Mingorance2021.2 WBV WlNi NA NA
Baelz2022 Acu PlaSh NA NA
Caumo2023 tDCS PlaSh NA NA
Agdere2025 AeET WlNi NA NA
RodriguezDominguez2026 ReET MiET NA NA
Silva2025 rTMS PlaSh NA NA
Code
# Basic model summaryprint(nma_sr_ash)
Number of studies: k = 113
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 125
Number of observations: o = 8216
Number of treatments: n = 22
Number of designs: d = 43
Random effects model
Treatment estimate (other treatments vs 'WlNi'):
OR 95% CI z p-value
Acu 0.8385 [0.3347; 2.1008] -0.38 0.7070
AeET 1.3108 [0.6712; 2.5597] 0.79 0.4281
AqET 1.6253 [0.7061; 3.7414] 1.14 0.2535
Bal 1.0503 [0.3263; 3.3803] 0.08 0.9345
CBT 1.2285 [0.9615; 1.5695] 1.65 0.0997
Cry 2.3731 [0.0929; 60.6503] 0.52 0.6012
DryN 1.0000 [0.3828; 2.6122] -0.00 1.0000
Elec 1.0825 [0.5108; 2.2938] 0.21 0.8362
FlET 1.4634 [0.6691; 3.2004] 0.95 0.3403
HtT 0.1765 [0.0180; 1.7256] -1.49 0.1360
MasT 0.7824 [0.3816; 1.6042] -0.67 0.5030
McT 0.9345 [0.6678; 1.3077] -0.40 0.6928
MfT 0.7156 [0.2537; 2.0184] -0.63 0.5270
MiET 0.9231 [0.6166; 1.3820] -0.39 0.6976
MnT 0.5789 [0.2110; 1.5881] -1.06 0.2884
PlaSh 0.8619 [0.4809; 1.5448] -0.50 0.6176
Plt 3.0830 [0.8513; 11.1645] 1.71 0.0864
ReET 1.2542 [0.6563; 2.3968] 0.69 0.4931
rTMS 0.6798 [0.2716; 1.7013] -0.82 0.4096
tDCS 0.7108 [0.2706; 1.8668] -0.69 0.4884
WBV 1.1058 [0.2693; 4.5417] 0.14 0.8890
WlNi . . . .
Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0; tau = 0; I^2 = 0% [0.0%; 24.5%]
Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
Q d.f. p-value
Total 81.01 98 0.8932
Within designs 61.67 70 0.7510
Between designs 19.34 28 0.8872
Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
Note
These three studies were excluded from the model because they reported a standard deviation of zero, which makes division by zero impossible.
- Bressan2008: AeET vs FlET
- Brietzke2019: tDCSvs PlaSh
- Castro-Sanchez2019: DryN vs MasT
- Castro-Sanchez2020: DryN vs Elec
- Colbert1999: MfT vs PlaSh
- daSilva2008: AqET vs WlNi
- Evcik2002: Bal vs WlNi
- Fonseca2019: AqET vs CBT
- Garcia2006: CBT vs WlNi
- Gomez-Hernandez2019: AeET vs MiET
- Gowans2001: AqET vs WlNi
- Harris2005: Acuvs PlaSh
- Harte2013: Acu vs PlaSh
- Kayo2012: AeET vs ReET
- Kayo2012: AeET vs WlNi
- Kayo2012: ReET vs WlNi
- King2002: CBT vs McT
- Mhalla2011: rTMSvs PlaSh
- Oka2019: MfT vs PlaSh
- Schachter2003: AeET vs WlNi
- Sencan2004: AeETvs PlaSh
- Sevimli2015: AeET vs AqET
- Sevimli2015: AeET vs MiET
- Sevimli2015: AqET vs MiET
- To2017: tDCSvs PlaSh
- Torres2015: MnT vs CBT
- Ugurlu2017: Acuvs PlaSh
- Valim2003: AeET vs FlET
- Vallejo2015: CBT vs WlNi
- Izquierdo-Alventosa2020: MiET vs WlNi
- Mingorance2021.2: WBV vs WlNi