Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UCLA

UCLA Previously Published Works bannerUCLA

Network Meta-analysis for Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Case Study on First-Line Medical Therapies for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.

Published Web Location

https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-2367
Abstract

Background

Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatment options for the same condition and may be useful for developing clinical practice guidelines.

Purpose

To compare treatment recommendations for first-line medical therapy for primary open angle-glaucoma (POAG) from major updates of American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) guidelines with the evidence available at the time, using network meta-analysis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched on 11 March 2014 for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of glaucoma monotherapies compared with placebo, vehicle, or no treatment or other monotherapies. The AAO Web site was searched in August 2014 to identify AAO POAG guidelines.

Study selection

Eligible RCTs were selected by 2 independent reviewers, and guidelines were selected by 1 person.

Data extraction

One person abstracted recommendations from guidelines and a second person verified. Two people independently abstracted data from included RCTs.

Data synthesis

Guidelines were grouped together on the basis of literature search dates, and RCTs that existed at 1991, 1995, 1999, 2004, and 2009 were analyzed. The outcome of interest was intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months. Only the latest guideline made a specific recommendation: prostaglandins. Network meta-analyses showed that all treatments were superior to placebo in decreasing IOP at 3 months. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals [CrIs]) for the highest-ranking class compared with placebo were as follows: 1991: β-blockers, 4.01 (CrI, 0.48 to 7.43); 1995: α2-adrenergic agonists, 5.64 (CrI, 1.73 to 9.50); 1999: prostaglandins, 5.43 (CrI, 3.38 to 7.38); 2004: prostaglandins, 4.75 (CrI, 3.11 to 6.44); 2009: prostaglandins, 4.58 (CrI, 2.94 to 6.24).

Limitation

When comparisons are informed by a small number of studies, the treatment effects and rankings may not be stable.

Conclusion

For timely recommendations when multiple treatment options are available, guidelines developers should consider network meta-analysis.

Primary funding source

National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View