Interconnected web of healthcare treatments representing network meta-analysis.

Network Meta-Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide to Comparing Treatments

Jordan Keane in Health & Wellness December 2025 • 4 min read.

"Unlocking the Power of NMA: How to Make Smarter Healthcare Decisions Using All Available Evidence."

In healthcare, making informed decisions relies on solid evidence. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard, comparing different treatments for specific conditions. But what happens when you need to evaluate more than two interventions at once?

Traditional meta-analyses, which combine the results of multiple studies, often fall short when dealing with complex scenarios involving numerous treatments. Performing multiple pairwise meta-analyses (comparing interventions two at a time) can be confusing and doesn't provide a clear overall picture. This is where network meta-analysis (NMA) comes in.

Network meta-analysis (NMA), also known as multiple treatment meta-analysis or mixed treatment comparisons, extends traditional meta-analysis. It allows for the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions in a single, coherent analysis, even if some treatments haven't been directly compared in head-to-head trials. This approach uses both direct and indirect evidence to provide a more complete and reliable assessment of treatment effectiveness.

How Network Meta-Analysis Works: Understanding the Basics

Interconnected web of healthcare treatments representing network meta-analysis.

The core idea behind NMA is surprisingly simple. Imagine three friends: Anne, Ben, and Charles. If you know Ben is 7 cm taller than Anne, and Charles is 10 cm taller than Anne, you automatically know that Charles is 3 cm taller than Ben. You can also rank them by height: Charles, Ben, then Anne. NMA applies this logic to treatment effects.

Let's say we want to compare treatments B and C for a specific condition. We find a trial comparing B to A, showing B is better by a certain amount (e.g., a mean difference (MD) of -2.3 with a standard error (SE) of 0.45). We also find another trial comparing C to A, showing C is even better (e.g., MD of -4.0 with an SE of 0.50).

Direct Evidence: This comes from head-to-head trials directly comparing two treatments.
Indirect Evidence: This is derived by comparing treatments through a common comparator. In our example, we can indirectly compare C and B because both have been compared to A.
Consistency (or Transitivity): NMA assumes that the relative treatment effects are consistent across different trials and populations. In other words, the effect of C versus B should be the same whether it's measured directly or indirectly through A.

NMA combines both direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative effects of all treatments compared to each other. It also considers the uncertainty (sampling error) in the estimates. This results in more precise and robust estimates of treatment effects and allows for ranking of all interventions in a coherent way.

Why Network Meta-Analysis Matters

In conclusion, network meta-analysis is a powerful tool for making informed healthcare decisions when multiple treatment options exist. By synthesizing all available evidence, including both direct and indirect comparisons, NMA provides more robust and precise estimates of treatment effects, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes. Displaying NMA results carefully helps clinicians to interpret and assess the plausibility of the assumptions made. Clinicians are encouraged to integrate NMA results cautiously and carefully.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is network meta-analysis (NMA) and how does it differ from traditional meta-analysis?

Network meta-analysis (NMA), also known as multiple treatment meta-analysis or mixed treatment comparisons, extends traditional meta-analysis. While traditional meta-analyses typically compare two interventions at a time, NMA allows for the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions in a single analysis. NMA achieves this by incorporating both direct and indirect evidence, providing a more complete and reliable assessment of treatment effectiveness than traditional meta-analysis, which primarily relies on direct evidence from head-to-head trials. This feature is particularly valuable when direct comparisons between all treatments are unavailable.

How does network meta-analysis (NMA) work with direct and indirect evidence?

NMA combines both direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative effects of all treatments. Direct evidence comes from head-to-head trials directly comparing two treatments. Indirect evidence is derived by comparing treatments through a common comparator. For example, if treatment B is compared to A and treatment C is compared to A, NMA can indirectly compare B and C. This leverages the information from multiple trials to create a comprehensive picture of treatment effectiveness. By incorporating both types of evidence, NMA provides more robust and precise estimates, especially when direct comparisons are limited or missing.

What is the importance of consistency (or transitivity) in network meta-analysis (NMA)?

Consistency, or transitivity, is a crucial assumption in NMA. It assumes that the relative treatment effects are consistent across different trials and populations. In simpler terms, the effect of comparing treatment C versus B should be the same whether it's measured directly or indirectly through a common comparator like treatment A. If this assumption is violated, the results of the NMA may be unreliable. Careful assessment of consistency is vital to ensure the validity and interpretability of NMA results.

What are the key advantages of using network meta-analysis (NMA) in healthcare?

NMA offers several advantages. It allows the comparison of multiple treatments simultaneously, even when direct head-to-head studies are lacking. It synthesizes all available evidence, including both direct and indirect comparisons, providing more robust and precise estimates of treatment effects. This leads to better-informed healthcare decisions and potentially improved patient outcomes. NMA also facilitates the ranking of different interventions, offering clinicians a clear overview of treatment effectiveness and aiding in the selection of the most suitable treatment options.

How can clinicians effectively use and interpret results from network meta-analysis (NMA)?

Clinicians should integrate NMA results cautiously and carefully. It is important to understand the assumptions made during the analysis and to assess the plausibility of those assumptions. Examining the evidence network, assessing the consistency of the findings, and considering the uncertainty around the estimates are all critical steps. NMA provides valuable insights when multiple treatment options exist; however, it should be used to inform clinical decision-making in conjunction with other evidence and the specific characteristics of the patient. Displaying NMA results carefully helps clinicians to interpret the results, assess the plausibility of the assumptions, and make the best use of the analysis.