Table 2.

Overview of simulated scenarios

Network geometry	Well-connected network
Studies/Pairwise comparisons	$k=28$
Interventions	$n=8$
	single: A, B, C, D,
	combined: $A+B,A+C,C+D,$
	reference: placebo P
Additivity assumption on relative intervention effects
Scenario A: Additive effects	${\delta }_{A+B,P}={\delta }_{A,P}+{\delta }_{B,P}$
	${\delta }_{A+C,P}={\delta }_{A,P}+{\delta }_{C,P}$
	${\delta }_{C+D,P}={\delta }_{C,P}+{\delta }_{D,P}$
Scenario B: Mild violation of additivity assumption
B1: combined intervention $A+B$	${\delta }_{A+B,P}={\delta }_{A,P}+{\delta }_{B,P}+{\lambda }_{\mathit{AB}},e^{{\lambda }_{\mathit{AB}}}=1.5$
B2: combined intervention $C+D$	${\delta }_{C+D,P}={\delta }_{C,P}+{\delta }_{D,P}+{\lambda }_{\mathit{CD}},e^{{\lambda }_{\mathit{CD}}}=1.5$
Scenario C: Strong violation of additivity assumption
C1: combined intervention $A+B$	${\delta }_{A+B,P}={\delta }_{A,P}+{\delta }_{B,P}+{\lambda }_{\mathit{AB}}$, $e^{{\lambda }_{\mathit{AB}}}=2.0$
C2: combined intervention $C+D$	${\delta }_{C+D,P}={\delta }_{C,P}+{\delta }_{D,P}+{\lambda }_{\mathit{CD}}$, $e^{{\lambda }_{\mathit{CD}}}=2.0$
Heterogeneity
No heterogeneity	${\tau }^2=0.00$
Low heterogeneity	${\tau }^2=0.01$
Moderate heterogeneity	${\tau }^2=0.10$
Inconsistency	No inconsistency
Other simulation parameters
True relative intervention effects	$e^{{\delta }_{A,P}}=1.40$, $e^{{\delta }_{B,P}}=1.20$, $e^{{\delta }_{C,P}}=2.30$, and $e^{{\delta }_{D,P}}=1.50$
Baseline probability	$p_P=0.1$
Patients per study arm	$n_i\sim \mathcal{U}(50,200)$
Iterations	$M=1000$