▸case-11 In an oncology network, direct trials comparing Immunotherapy A vs Chemo B permitted rescue steroids, whereas trials comparing Chemo B vs Chemo C strictly prohibited steroids. How does this impact network meta-analysis assumptions? | pass→pass | 16,472 | 12,491 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,694 | 2,142 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-03 We want to combine direct and indirect evidence across a network of hypertension drugs. Studies comparing Drug A vs Drug B enrolled patients with mild hypertension (mean SBP 145 mmHg), while studies comparing Drug B vs Drug C enrolled severe hypertension patients (mean SBP 175 mmHg). Can transitivity be assumed across A vs C? | pass→pass | 8,965 | 9,728 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,464 | 1,762 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-04 In a network comparing Biologics A, B, and C for rheumatoid arthritis, we have trials for A vs B, B vs C, and A vs C. How does this structural configuration affect our ability to evaluate consistency between direct and indirect evidence? | pass→pass | 14,072 | 11,431 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,368 | 2,215 | -6% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-05 We have extracted arm-level sample sizes and event counts from 15 trials evaluating major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across 5 cholesterol-lowering drugs. What primary inputs are required to construct the underlying contrast matrix for network geometry assessment? | pass→pass | 11,142 | 5,985 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,804 | 1,124 | -38% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-01 We are planning a quantitative synthesis comparing four second-line diabetes treatments (metformin, sitagliptin, empagliflozin, liraglutide) from 12 RCTs. Several trials have placebo or active controls. How should we structure the core nodes and primary connections to evaluate the structural layout of this treatment network? | pass→pass | 16,758 | 11,277 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,700 | 2,174 | -19% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-02 In a systematic review of acute migraine therapies, trials compare sumatriptan vs placebo, rizatriptan vs placebo, and zolmitriptan vs sumatriptan. A separate cluster of 3 trials compares laser therapy vs sham. Should we proceed with a single unified network meta-analysis across all treatments? | pass→pass | 10,142 | 5,846 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,671 | 1,211 | -28% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-06 Our network structure consists of 8 active antidepressant treatments each compared only to placebo, with zero head-to-head active comparator trials available. What key limitation exists regarding consistency evaluation in this geometry? | pass→pass | 6,554 | 7,957 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,026 | 1,453 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-07 Trial 101 is a 3-arm RCT comparing Drug A (n=100), Drug B (n=100), and Placebo (n=100). How should the edges and sample size contributions be represented in the evidence network diagram? | pass→pass | 12,356 | 6,857 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,225 | 1,477 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-08 A systematic review evaluates Drug X at 5mg and 10mg daily doses alongside Drug Y and Placebo. Should 5mg and 10mg be merged into a single 'Drug X' node or kept as distinct nodes during initial network mapping? | pass→pass | 11,344 | 8,106 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,868 | 1,316 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-09 When evaluating transitivity across a stroke prevention network, we notice A vs B trials were all open-label unblinded studies from 1995, whereas B vs C trials were double-blind RCTs from 2020. How should this affect our transitivity assessment? | pass→pass | 15,065 | 10,790 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,444 | 1,885 | -23% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-10 We are comparing two potential network structures for a psoriasis review: Network 1 has 6 nodes and 5 edges; Network 2 has 6 nodes and 11 edges. Which metric quantifies the completeness of direct comparisons relative to all possible pairwise comparisons? | pass→pass | 5,724 | 5,946 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,102 | 1,275 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-12 Describe the necessary components of a formal evidence network geometry report for a peer-reviewed systematic review comparing 6 biologic therapies. | fail→fail | 19,703 | 12,492 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,126 | 2,177 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-13 In a 10-treatment network for chronic pain, Paracetamol is compared in trials against 7 distinct active drugs and placebo, while Drug Z is compared only against Placebo. What graph theory concept describes Paracetamol's central role? | pass→pass | 7,119 | 5,036 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,145 | 1,034 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-14 Trials comparing Treatment X vs Treatment Y enrolled only pediatric patients (<18 years), while trials comparing Treatment Y vs Treatment Z enrolled only adults (>65 years). Is an indirect comparison of X vs Z valid under standard NMA assumptions? | pass→pass | 11,218 | 8,216 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,703 | 1,425 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-15 An evidence map reveals Group 1 (Surgical interventions A, B, C) has comparisons among themselves, and Group 2 (Pharmacological agents D, E, F) has comparisons among themselves, but no trial compares any surgical intervention to any drug. How should network synthesis proceed? | pass→pass | 13,851 | 8,170 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,157 | 1,420 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-16 We have 4 treatments (A, B, C, D) and 10 trials. What tabular structure summarizes the available direct comparisons, trial counts, and total sample sizes across all pair combinations? | pass→pass | 11,568 | 7,242 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,239 | 1,487 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-17 To estimate the effect of Drug A vs Drug E, the only available pathway in the network is A-B-C-D-E. What concern arises regarding the variance and reliability of this indirect estimate? | pass→pass | 10,821 | 7,138 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,845 | 1,364 | -26% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-18 In a network of SGLT2 inhibitors, should dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and canagliflozin be pooled into a single class node or kept as separate nodes when evaluating efficacy vs safety? | fail→pass | 16,816 | 12,361 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,570 | 2,145 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-19 A researcher states: 'Transitivity and consistency are identical concepts in network meta-analysis.' How would you clarify the distinction between these two concepts in an evidence network evaluation? | pass→pass | 15,765 | 8,935 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,464 | 1,677 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-20 We have 5 head-to-head RCTs comparing Drug A versus Drug B for major depression. We want to synthesize the risk ratios using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, calculate I-squared heterogeneity, and generate a forest plot in R using the 'metafor' package. Please provide the mathematical formula for the random-effects pooled estimate and the code to run this pairwise synthesis. | pass→pass | 14,664 | 14,471 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,874 | 3,296 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-21 We have an individual patient dataset (IPD) from a single 3-arm clinical trial (Arm 1: Dose 10mg, Arm 2: Dose 20mg, Arm 3: Placebo) with 500 patients. We need to fit a multivariable logistic regression model predicting 30-day mortality adjusting for age, baseline creatinine, and smoking status. Please output the R syntax using glm() and explain how to interpret odds ratios for the covariates. | pass→pass | 13,122 | 11,792 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,646 | 2,349 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-22 We are conducting a systematic review of a single intervention vs placebo. We need to assess certainty of evidence across 5 domains (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias) using the standard GRADE framework for a primary outcome of overall survival. Provide the GRADE evidence profile table layout and criteria for downgrading. | pass→pass | 20,737 | 16,260 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,669 | 2,982 | -19% | 0 | 0 | — |