Skip to main content

Table 5 Contributions from studies with enrichment design to mixed and indirect estimates

From: Using the contribution matrix to evaluate complex study limitations in a network meta-analysis: a case study of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy review

  Depressive episode relapse Mania episode relapse
In favour of the drug to the right (%) In disfavour of the drug to the right (%) Enrichment of unknown direction (%) In favour of the drug to the right (%) In disfavour of the rug to the right (%) Enrichment of unknown
direction (%)
PLB vs LIT 12.12 10.49 0.05 5.73 6.83 0.24
PLB vs VPA 5.51 0.00 4.82 3.34 0.00 4.18
PLB vs LTG 48.26 0.00 1.94 21.75 0.00 1.51
PLB vs IMP 5.80 5.20 7.43 2.97 4.76 6.03
PLB vs FLX 68.79 0.00 3.02
PLB vs LIT + IMP 17.76 0.00 5.03 13.26 0.00 3.53
PLB vs ARP 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.90 0.00 0.00
PLB vs OLZ 2.59 0.00 2.25 45.83 20.40 0.22
PLB vs QTP 40.87 0.00 2.40 33.53 0.00 1.61
PLB vs RisLAI 0.69 0.00 0.58 72.94 0.00 0.03
PLB vs PAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
  1. When patients were recruited in manic (or depressive) episodes and stabilised with drug A and then after stabilisation randomised to drug A vs drug B, then such patients were considered to have been enriched against manic (or depressive) relapses but not for depressive (or manic) relapses. Contributions of the effects from studies with enrichment design to mixed or indirect comparisons were calculated as the sum of the proportion of such patients in each direct comparison, weighted by the contribution matrix
  2. ARP aripiprazole, CBZ carbamazepine, FLX fluoxetine, IMP imipramine, LIT lithium, LTG lamotrigine, OLZ olanzapine, OXC oxcarbazepine, PAL paliperidone, PLB placebo, QTP quetiapine, RisLAI risperidone long-acting injection, VPA valproate