Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis that HTA bodies accept
Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) services from a clinician led team serving India, MENA, Europe, and global markets.
When head-to-head trials do not exist, and for most treatment comparisons they do not, the evidence has to be synthesized. Meta-analysis pools comparable studies to estimate an effect with more precision than any single trial; network meta-analysis (NMA) goes further, comparing treatments that were never studied against each other by connecting them through common comparators. Both are now routine in HTA submissions, and both are scrutinized hard, because the method choices change the answer.
EvySaif conducts meta-analysis and network meta-analysis for publications and for health technology assessment, built on a systematic review foundation and reported to the standards HTA bodies apply. This deepens our systematic literature review capability into quantitative synthesis, where the technical rigor of the analysis, not just the search, determines whether the result is accepted.
From systematic review to quantitative synthesis
- Systematic review foundation. A meta-analysis is only as sound as the review beneath it: a documented, reproducible search, transparent selection, and quality appraisal, reported to PRISMA 2020.
- Pairwise meta-analysis. Fixed and random effects models with heterogeneity assessment, subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and publication bias evaluation, presented so a reader can judge the pooled estimate.
- Network meta-analysis. Bayesian or frequentist NMA connecting treatments through common comparators, with the assumptions, transitivity, consistency, and the evidence network, examined explicitly.
- Indirect treatment comparison. Adjusted indirect comparisons and population-adjusted methods (such as MAIC and STC) when networks are sparse or populations differ.
Reported for the audience that will challenge it
For HTA submissions, we report to the methods expectations of bodies such as NICE, including the NICE Decision Support Unit technical guidance on evidence synthesis, because an NMA that omits its consistency checks or hides its network diagram invites the exact critique that delays an appraisal. Synthesis built this way feeds directly into economic models and HTA submissions, where the relative effect estimate is often the single most influential input.
What we deliver
Pairwise meta-analysis
Fixed and random effects synthesis with heterogeneity, subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses, to PRISMA 2020.
Network meta-analysis
Bayesian or frequentist NMA with explicit transitivity and consistency assessment and a documented evidence network.
Indirect treatment comparison
MAIC, STC, and adjusted indirect comparisons for sparse networks or population differences.
HTA-ready synthesis reports
Evidence synthesis reports and manuscripts to NICE DSU and PRISMA standards, ready to feed models and submissions.
Built to the standards that matter
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between meta-analysis and network meta-analysis?
Pairwise meta-analysis pools studies comparing the same two interventions. Network meta-analysis compares three or more treatments, including pairs never studied head-to-head, by connecting them through shared comparators. NMA is common in HTA where multiple treatments compete.
Do you follow NICE methods for evidence synthesis?
Yes. For HTA-directed work we report to PRISMA 2020 and align the synthesis methods with the NICE Decision Support Unit technical guidance, since that is the standard the appraisal will apply.
Can the synthesis feed our economic model?
Yes, and it usually should. The relative treatment effect from the meta-analysis or NMA is often the most influential input in a cost-effectiveness model, so we design the synthesis and the model to connect cleanly.