See information about the picture in the caption
Hypothetical network graph of pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis. The nodes represent the competing treatments with size proportional to the total number of participants and the edges represent direct comparisons between treatments with thickness proportional to the number of studies available (shown as numbers). Nodes with the same color represent treatments that belong in the same class. Edges with red are comparisons involving treatments in the green class. (ADA: adalimumab; APRE: apremilast; BIME: bimekizumab; BRODA: brodalumab; CERTO: certolizumab; CICLO: ciclosporin; DEUCRAVA: deucravacitinib; ETA: etanercept; FUM: fumaric acid; IFX: infliximab; IXE: ixekizumab; GUSEL: guselkumab; MTX: methotrexate; NETA: netakimab; PBO: placebo; RISAN: risankizumab; SECU: secukinumab; SONELO: sonelokimab; TILDRA: tildrakizumab; USK: ustekinumab) 

 

About the group

Systematic reviews that simultaneously compare multiple interventions are often termed comparative effectiveness reviews. Data from such reviews can form networks of interventions in which the different interventions may be linked via one or more individual studies that compare them directly. Synthesis of connected networks can be conducted, under certain conditions, through network meta-analysis which combines for every comparison the evidence coming from all possible paths within the network.

Our group continuously develops new methods for the synthesis of data from networks of healthcare interventions aiming to fill gaps of the existing methodology, to identify and control bias, and to guide decision making over time. We also develop new software that facilitates the conduct, the presentation, and the interpretation of results from comparative effectiveness reviews. Finally, we undertake the planning and conduct of the statistical analysis for comparative effectiveness reviews with great clinical or methodological interest.