Dear Carla,
The help file of the function forest.meta shows that the size of these
boxes (there called squares) is proportional to the study weights (that may
be inverse variances or may be determined otherwise, see argument
weight.study) or (for netmeta) comparison weights. The width of these
squares has no precise meaning, they can be interpreted only relatively to
each other: A study / comparison with greater weight obtains a bigger
square:
weight.study: A character string indicating weighting used to determine
size of squares or diamonds (argument ?type.study?) to plot
individual study results. One of missing, ?"same"?,
?"fixed"?, or ?"random"?, can be abbreviated. Plot symbols
have the same size for all studies or represent study weights
from fixed effect or random effects model.
The colours of the square have merely practical meaning: The default
colour of the square is gray, and the default colour of the confidence
interval is black. If the study has large weight, the square may become
wider than the confidence interval, and then the confidence interval (the
"cross") becomes white. The square can also be so small that it looks like
a vertical line.
All these colours and properties may be changed by corresponding
arguments, such as col.square, col.square.lines, squaresize. See
help(forest.meta).
Best,
Gerta
On 07/28/2017 05:08 AM, Carla Gomez Creutzberg 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 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