Table 2.
Evaluation of consistency using loop specific approach
| Treatments included in the loop of evidence | Inconsistency factor* | 95% CI |
| All‐cause mortality | ||
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – biosimilar ESA | 0.87 | 0.00‐3.32 |
| Epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – placebo | 0.40 | 0.00‐1.82 |
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – biosimilar ESA – no treatment | 0.66 | 0.00‐3.36 |
| Epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – methoxy polyethylene glycol‐epoetin beta | 0.02 | 0.00‐2.08 |
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – biosimilar ESA – placebo | 0.64 | 0.00‐3.99 |
| Epoetin alfa – darbepoetin alfa – placebo | 0.17 | 0.00‐2.17 |
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – no treatment | 0.16 | 0.00‐1.58 |
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – placebo – no treatment | 0.07 | 0.00‐2.54 |
| Transfusion | ||
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – placebo – no treatment | 2.09 | 0.00‐6.91 |
| Epoetin alfa – darbepoetin alfa – placebo | 1.97 | 0.00‐4.20 |
| Epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa ‐ methoxy polyethylene glycol‐epoetin beta ‐ placebo | 1.26 | 0.00‐3.39 |
| Myocardial infarction | ||
| Epoetin alfa – darbepoetin alfa – placebo | 1.13 | 0.00‐4.37 |
| Hypertension | ||
| Epoetin alfa – darbepoetin alfa – placebo | 1.55 | 0.26‐2.84 |
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – no treatment | 2.03 | 0.00‐4.66 |
| Epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – placebo | 1.56 | 0.73‐2.38 |
| Epoetin alfa – epoetin beta – placebo – no treatment | 2.15 | 0.00‐4.91 |
| Epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – methoxy polyethylene glycol‐epoetin beta | 2.49 | 0.76‐4.22 |
| Vascular access thrombosis | ||
| Epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – placebo | 1.32 | 0.00‐3.86 |
| Epoetin beta – darbepoetin alfa – methoxy polyethylene glycol‐epoetin beta – placebo | 0.98 | 0.00‐3.35 |
*The inconsistency factor is the absolute difference in the log odds ratio estimated from indirect and direct treatment comparisons and is reported together with the 95% confidence interval. A 95% confidence interval that includes zero indicates that the result is compatible with zero inconsistency between effect estimates using indirect (network meta‐analysis) and direct (conventional pairwise meta‐analysis) treatment comparisons. We used the'ifplot' command in STATA to estimate inconsistency (Chaimani 2013) allowing for all comparisons within a loop to share a common heterogeneity variance