Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary effect size of pairwise and network meta-analysis

From: Outcomes of bisphosphonate and its supplements for bone loss in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Comparisons

No. of directed trials (participants)

Pairwise meta-analysis mean differences (95% CI)

Network meta-analysis mean differences (95% CrI)

Heterogeneity I2

P-Value

Quality of evidence

Absolute BMD change at the femoral neck (536)

 Bis+Ca vs. Bis+Ca + Vit D

1 (29)

–

− 0.01 (− 0.32, 0.29)

–

–

Low

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca

5 (167)

1.3 (0.92, 1.68)

0.19 (− 0.01, 0.38)

94.70%

0.000

Low

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

2 (176)

0.26 (−0.04, 0.56)

0.06 (− 0.15, 0.26)

38.10%

0.184

Moderate

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

2 (61)

0.21 (−0.29, 0.72)

0.06 (− 0.22, 0.36)

24.60%

0.249

Moderate

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca

–

–

0.20 (−0.14, 0.53)

–

–

Very low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Vit D

4 (206)

0.36 (0.08, 0.64)

0.07 (−0.18, 0.30)

67.60%

0.026

Low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

–

–

0.07 (−0.34, 0.46)

–

–

Very low

 Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

2 (46)

−0.74 (−1.34, − 0.14)

−0.13 (− 0.38, 0.13)

0.00%

0.403

Low

 Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

2 (60)

−0.55 (−1.07, − 0.03)

−0.12 (− 0.41, 0.19)

60.20%

0.113

Low

 Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

1 (30)

–

0.00 (−0.30, 0.34)

–

–

Low

Percent BMD change at the femoral neck (284)

 Bis+Ca vs. Bis+Ca + Vit D

1 (29)

–

−4.60 (−18.07, 7.67)

–

–

Low

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca

4 (152)

1.14 (0.78, 1.51)

5.83 (1.61, 9.27)

91.10%

0.000

Moderate

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

4 (46)

1.55 (0.76, 2.35)

−0.24 (5.62, 9.79)

96.10%

0.000

Low

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

1 (31)

–

−0.04 (−19.65, 18.12)

–

–

Low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca

–

–

10.43 (−2.64, 23.31)

–

–

Very low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Vit D

–

–

4.35 (−2.29, 11.37)

–

–

Very low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

–

–

4.56 (−18.36, 19.16)

–

–

Very low

 Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

3 (51)

−1.53 (−2.18, −0.88)

−6.07 (− 17.09, 4.47)

79.30%

0.028

Low

 Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

1 (30)

–

−5.87 (−20.01, 18.60)

–

–

Low

 Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

1 (30)

–

0.20 (−19.15, 19.61)

–

–

Low

Absolute BMD change at the lumbar spine (814)

 Bis+Ca vs. Bis+Ca + Vit D

1 (29)

–

−0.01 (−0.06, 0.04)

–

–

Low

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca

5 (167)

0.51 (0.20, 0.82)

0.06 (0.02, 0.09)

0.00%

0.571

Moderate

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

4 (176)

0.19 (−0.11, 0.49)

0.01 (−0.03, 0.06)

0.00%

0.866

Moderate

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

2 (61)

0.49 (−0.02, 1.00)

0.05 (−0.01, 0.11)

24.60%

0.250

Moderate

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca

1 (30)

–

0.07 (0.00, 0.13)

–

–

Low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Vit D

8 (484)

0.38 (0.19, 0.57)

0.03 (0.00, 0.05)

92.10%

0.000

Moderate

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

–

–

0.06 (−0.01, 0.15)

–

–

Very low

 Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

2 (46)

−0.40 (− 0.99, 0.18)

−0.04 (− 0.10, 0.02)

0.00%

0.960

Moderate

 Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

2 (60)

−0.04 (− 0.55, 0.47)

−0.01 (− 0.07, 0.06)

0.00%

0.874

Moderate

 Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

–

–

0.04 (−0.04, 0.12)

–

–

Very low

Percent BMD change at the lumbar spine (466)

 Bis+Ca vs.  Bis+Ca + Vit D

–

–

−3.27 (−7.87, 0.84)

–

–

Very low

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca

4 (152)

1.17 (0.80, 1.54)

7.24 (3.73, 10.69)

91.70%

0.000

Moderate

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

2 (46)

1.53 (0.79, 2.27)

2.22 (−1.44, 5.73)

94.10%

0.000

Low

 Bis+Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

1 (31)

–

3.13 (−2.51, 8.51)

–

–

Low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca

–

–

10.50 (5.92, 15.34)

–

–

Very low

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Vit D

3 (145)

1.32 (1.02, 1.62)

5.48 (2.57, 8.42)

98.30%

0.000

Moderate

 Bis+Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

–

–

6.39 (0.55, 12.89)

–

–

Low

 Ca vs. Ca + Vit D

2 (51)

−2.73 (−3.51, −1.95)

−5.02 (−8.84, − 1.20)

0.00%

0.373

Moderate

 Ca vs. Ca + Calcitonin

1 (30)

–

−4.11 (−9.01, 0.72)

–

–

Low

 Ca + Vit D vs. Ca + Calcitonin

–

–

0.91 (−4.38, 6.44)

–

–

Very low

  1. Bis = bisphosphonate, Ca = calcium, Vit D = Vitamin D analogs, 95% CI = 95% Confidence Intervals, 95% CrI = 95% Credible Intervals. The mean difference with 95% CI or 95% CrI was used for continuous outcomes. Significant results are in bold. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach specific to NMA served to assess the certainty in the evidence (quality of evidence) associated with specific comparisons, including direct, indirect, and final network meta-analysis estimates. The confidence assessment addressed the risk of bias (in individual studies), imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity in estimates of effect across studies), indirectness, and publication bias