[R-meta] Forest plot and sub-networks in netmeta
Greetings everyone, I am conducting my first network meta-analysis and for that I have been using netmeta. I've read a bit on general and network meta-analysis I can;t seem to find any indication as to how to interpret the grey boxes or interval demarcations that show up in netmeta's forest plots? [image: Inline image 1] As shown in the image above (can also be found in the attachments as "forest.pl.jpeg"), these boxes appear to be plotted around some (or perhaps all) of the model estimates. In some cases they also appear to encompass an interval longer than the 95%CI intervals for the estimate which is then shown in white instead of black ink. I was wondering what type of interval was represented by these boxes and it was something that was estimated for all treatments or only some of them? In addition, for a couple of the meta-analyses I am doing I have found that the evidence networks are not well connected and end up as two separate sub-networks. I was wondering whether it was appropriate to conduct separate meta-analyses on the individual sub-networks or whether there was any other way to try and tackle the analysis in these cases? Thanks a lot for attention and any suggestions you can provide Carla On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Carla Gomez Creutzberg <cgomezcre at gmail.com
wrote:
Greetings everyone, I am conducting my first network meta-analysis and for that I have been using netmeta. I've read a bit on general and network meta-analysis I can;t seem to find any indication as to how to interpret the grey boxes or interval demarcations that show up in netmeta's forest plots? [image: Inline image 2] As shown in the image above (can also be found in the attachments as "forest.pl.jpeg"), these boxes appear to be plotted around some (or perhaps all) of the model estimates. In some cases they also appear to encompass an interval longer than the 95%CI intervals for the estimate which is then shown in white instead of black ink. I was wondering what type of interval was represented by these boxes and it was something that was estimated for all treatments or only some of them? In addition, for a couple of the meta-analyses I am doing I have found that the evidence networks are not well connected and end up as two separate sub-networks. I was wondering whether it was appropriate to conduct separate meta-analyses on the individual sub-networks or whether there was any other way to try and tackle the analysis in these cases? Thanks a lot for attention and any suggestions you can provide Carla
*Carla G?mez Creutzberg* PhD. Candidate - Tylianakis Lab <http://www.tylianakislab.org/the-group.html> University of Canterbury - *Te Whare W?nanga o Waitaha* Christchurch, New Zealand <http://www.tylianakislab.org/the-group.html> cgomezcre at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170728/6962f22e/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: forest.pl.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24498 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170728/6962f22e/attachment-0003.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: forest.pl.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24498 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170728/6962f22e/attachment-0004.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: forest.pl.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24498 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/attachments/20170728/6962f22e/attachment-0005.jpg>