network-comparison

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.

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

1. Frame — Run pico-formulation for the multi-method question
2. Scope — Run inclusion-criteria-design covering all treatment nodes
3. Search — Systematic search for all pairwise comparisons
4. Network — Run evidence-network-construction to map the geometry
5. Extract — Use effect-size-extraction tactic per study arm
6. Assess — Use quality-assessment-protocol (RoB2 + CINeMA)
7. Transitivity — Run heterogeneity-source-analysis to verify transitivity
8. Plan — Use evidence-synthesis-planning for NMA model selection
9. 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