Reference intervals, or reference ranges, aid medical decision-making by containing a pre-specified proportion (e.g., 95%) of the measurements in a representative healthy population. We recently proposed three approaches for estimating a reference interval from a meta-analysis based on a random effects model: a frequentist approach, a Bayesian…

Standard models for network meta-analysis simultaneously estimate multiple relative treatment effects. In practice, after estimation, these multiple estimates usually pass through a formal or informal selection procedure, eg, when researchers draw conclusions about the effects of the best performing treatment in the network. In this paper, we…

Meta-analyses of clinical trials targeting rare events face particular challenges when the data lack adequate numbers of events for all treatment arms. Especially when the number of studies is low, standard random-effects meta-analysis methods can lead to serious distortions because of such data sparsity. To overcome this, we suggest the use of…

In network meta-analysis, the use of fixed baseline treatment effects (a priori independent) in a contrast-based approach is regularly preferred to the use of random baseline treatment effects (a priori dependent). That is because, often, there is not a need to model baseline treatment effects, which carry the risk of model misspecification.…

Bayesian statistical approaches to mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are becoming more popular because of their flexibility and interpretability. Many randomized clinical trials report multiple outcomes with possible inherent correlations. Moreover, MTC data are typically sparse (although richer than standard meta-analysis, comparing only two…