{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015197568389057751, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.488636363636363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Addressing between‐study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non‐rheumatic atrial fibrillation

Mixed treatment comparison models extend meta‐analysis methods to enable comparisons to be made between all relevant comparators in the clinical area of interest. In such modelling it is imperative that potential sources of variability are explored to explain both heterogeneity (variation in treatment effects between trials within pairwise contrasts) and inconsistency (variation in treatment effects between pairwise contrasts) to ensure the validity of the analysis.