Separates direct and indirect evidence for each comparison and tests for inconsistency between them.

Usage

node_splitting(nma_result, data = NULL, conf_level = 0.95)

Arguments

nma_result: Result from network_meta()
data: Original NMA data frame
conf_level: Numeric. Confidence level. Default: 0.95

Value

Data frame with direct, indirect, and inconsistency test results

Note

This is a simplified implementation. Full node-splitting requires re-running the network meta-analysis excluding direct evidence for each comparison, which is computationally intensive. Consider using specialized NMA packages (e.g., gemtc, netmeta) for rigorous inconsistency assessment.

Examples

# Node-splitting for inconsistency testing
nma_data <- data.frame(
  study = c("S1", "S2", "S3"),
  treat1 = c("A", "B", "A"),
  treat2 = c("B", "C", "C"),
  effect = log(c(0.75, 0.90, 0.80)),
  se = c(0.12, 0.15, 0.18)
)
nma_result <- network_meta(nma_data, effect_measure = "hr")
ns_result <- node_splitting(nma_result)
ns_result$note
#> [1] "Full node-splitting requires re-analysis excluding direct evidence. Results shown are simplified."