ArticlePloS one2012
Impact of reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant placebo-controlled trials.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Pooled it
- Comparing bona fide psychotherapies of depression in adults with two meta-analytical approaches.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Association between P(16INK4a) promoter methylation and non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2022Observational
- Efficacy and safety of acupuncture and moxibustion for herpes zoster: A protocol for systematic review and network meta analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
- Vibration of effects from diverse inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical choices: 9216 different ways to perform an indirect comparison meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2019Article
- Empirical evaluation of SUCRA-based treatment ranks in network meta-analysis: quantifying robustness using Cohen's kappa.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Borrowing of strength from indirect evidence in 40 network meta-analyses.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
- Multivariate network meta-analysis to mitigate the effects of outcome reporting bias.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- Why prudence is needed when interpreting articles reporting clinical trial results in mental health.Trials · 2017Article
- Effectiveness and Tolerability of Different Recommended Doses of PPIs and HScientific reports · 2017Article
- [Basic concepts for network meta-analysis].Atencion primaria · 2014Article
- Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction.Rheumatology international · 2014Review
- A test for reporting bias in trial networks: simulation and case studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndirect comparisons of competing treatments by network meta-analysis (NMA) are increasingly in use. Reporting bias has received little attention in this context. We aimed to assess the impact of such bias in NMAs.
methodsWe used data from 74 FDA-registered placebo-controlled trials of 12 antidepressants and their 51 matching publications. For each dataset, NMA was used to estimate the effect sizes for 66 possible pair-wise comparisons of these drugs, the probabilities of being the best drug and ranking the drugs. To assess the impact of reporting bias, we compared the NMA results for the 51 published trials and those for the 74 FDA-registered trials. To assess how reporting bias affecting only one drug may affect the ranking of all drugs, we performed 12 different NMAs for hypothetical analysis. For each of these NMAs, we used published data for one drug and FDA data for the 11 other drugs.
findingsPair-wise effect sizes for drugs derived from the NMA of published data and those from the NMA of FDA data differed in absolute value by at least 100% in 30 of 66 pair-wise comparisons (45%). Depending on the dataset used, the top 3 agents differed, in composition and order. When reporting bias hypothetically affected only one drug, the affected drug ranked first in 5 of the 12 NMAs but second (n = 2), fourth (n = 1) or eighth (n = 2) in the NMA of the complete FDA network.
conclusionsIn this particular network, reporting bias biased NMA-based estimates of treatments efficacy and modified ranking. The reporting bias effect in NMAs may differ from that in classical meta-analyses in that reporting bias affecting only one drug may affect the ranking of all drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.