Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24618053›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review.

Aïda Bafeta, Ludovic Trinquart, Raphaèle Seror, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 42 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 42 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

103 citing papers in PubMed, 42 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aïda BafetaAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, INSERM U1153, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, 75004 Paris, France.
Ludovic Trinquart
Raphaèle Seror
Philippe Ravaud

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine how the results of network meta-analyses are reported.

designMethodological systematic review of published reports of network meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012. STUDY SELECTION: All network meta-analyses comparing the clinical efficacy of three or more interventions in randomised controlled trials were included, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The reporting of the network and results was assessed. A composite outcome included the description of the network (number of interventions, direct comparisons, and randomised controlled trials and patients for each comparison) and the reporting of effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis.

results121 network meta-analyses (55 published in general journals; 48 funded by at least one private source) were included. The network and its geometry (network graph) were not reported in 100 (83%) articles. The effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis were not reported in 48 (40%), 108 (89%), and 43 (36%) articles, respectively. In 52 reports that ranked interventions, 43 did not report the uncertainty in ranking. Overall, 119 (98%) reports of network meta-analyses did not give a description of the network or effect sizes from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis. This finding did not differ by journal type or funding source.

conclusionsThe results of network meta-analyses are heterogeneously reported. Development of reporting guidelines to assist authors in writing and readers in critically appraising reports of network meta-analyses is timely.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicCooperative BehaviorEvidence-Based MedicineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24618053
PMCPMC3949412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.