If the results from a network meta-analysis using standard means differences (Hedges g) and using both direct and indirect evidence finds that:
- Treatment A is not significantly less/more effective that Treatment B (A = B)
- Treatment A is not significantly less/more effective than Treatment C (A = C)
- Treatment B is significantly more effective than Treatment C (B > C)
In short:
- A = B
- A = C
- B > C
Then would it be fair to at least consider that this might indicate the assumption of transitivity has been violated?
I found this post that I think is similar to my query and it mentions the Condorcet Paradox and the violation of transitivity.
EDIT:
To add the actual SMDs:
- AB Comparison (g = -0.27; CI = -0.81 to 0.28): Favours B
- AC Comparison (g = -0.29; CI = -0.29 to 0.14): Favours A
- BC Comparison (g = 0.56; CI = 0.11 to 1.0): Favours B