name: network-comparison
description: Compare N methods simultaneously including indirect evidence — network meta-analysis protocol design. Budget: 50 studies, 80 effect sizes, 60 web searches.
used-by: meta-analysis
Network Comparison Strategy
Design a network meta-analysis (NMA) protocol comparing N>=3 methods simultaneously, leveraging both direct and indirect evidence.
Purpose
When multiple methods have been compared in various head-to-head studies but no single study compares all methods, network meta-analysis synthesizes direct and indirect evidence to rank all methods simultaneously. This strategy produces the complete NMA protocol.
Budget
| Resource | Floor | Target |
|---|
| Studies identified | 35 | 50 |
| Effect sizes extracted | 55 | 80 |
| Web searches | 40 | 60 |
| Network nodes (methods) | 3 | N |
| Quality assessments | 25 | 50 |
Budget gate: cannot exit until 80% of floor met.
State Ledger
<HARD-GATE>
| Metric | Current | Floor | Target | Status |
|--------|---------|-------|--------|--------|
| Studies found | 0 | 35 | 50 | BLOCKED |
| Effect sizes planned | 0 | 55 | 80 | BLOCKED |
| Web searches done | 0 | 40 | 60 | BLOCKED |
| Network nodes | 0 | 3 | N | BLOCKED |
| Quality assessed | 0 | 25 | 50 | BLOCKED |
</HARD-GATE>
Available Tactics
| Tactic | When to Use |
|---|
| effect-size-extraction | Extract effect sizes from each study arm |
| quality-assessment-protocol | Assess RoB + CINeMA framework for NMA |
| evidence-synthesis-planning | Plan NMA model (consistency, ranking) |
Available SOPs
| SOP | When to Use |
|---|
| pico-formulation | Frame the multi-method comparison |
| inclusion-criteria-design | Define eligibility across all comparisons |
| effect-size-planning | Standardize effect sizes across study designs |
| data-extraction-form | Multi-arm extraction template |
| risk-of-bias-assessment | Per-study + network-level bias |
| evidence-network-construction | Build the network geometry graph |
| heterogeneity-source-analysis | Assess transitivity assumption |
| sensitivity-analysis-design | Node-splitting, exclusion sensitivity |
| publication-bias-assessment | Comparison-adjusted funnel plots |
| meta-analysis-synthesis | Final NMA protocol assembly |
Execution Guidance
- Frame — Run
pico-formulation for the multi-method question
- Scope — Run
inclusion-criteria-design covering all treatment nodes
- Search — Systematic search for all pairwise comparisons
- Network — Run
evidence-network-construction to map the geometry
- Extract — Use
effect-size-extraction tactic per study arm
- Assess — Use
quality-assessment-protocol (RoB2 + CINeMA)
- Transitivity — Run
heterogeneity-source-analysis to verify transitivity
- Plan — Use
evidence-synthesis-planning for NMA model selection
- Synthesize — Run
meta-analysis-synthesis for final protocol
Iterate steps 3-6 until budget floor met. Verify network connectivity after each batch.
Output Format
protocol:
question: [PICO with multiple interventions]
network_geometry:
nodes: [list of methods/interventions]
edges: [direct comparisons available]
connected: [yes/no]
inclusion_criteria: [eligibility rules]
studies_included: [list with arm-level metadata]
effect_size_type: [standardized across network]
model: [consistency/inconsistency NMA model]
transitivity_assessment: [effect modifiers balanced?]
ranking_method: [SUCRA/P-score/mean ranks]
heterogeneity_plan: [global I2, tau2, between-design heterogeneity]
inconsistency_plan: [node-splitting, design-by-treatment interaction]
sensitivity_plan: [network reduction, node exclusion]
bias_assessment_plan: [comparison-adjusted funnel, small-study effects]
reporting: PRISMA-NMA extension
