Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24671099›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement.

Brian Hutton, Georgia Salanti, Anna Chaimani, Deborah M Caldwell, Chris Schmid, Kristian Thorlund, Edward Mills, Ferrán Catalá-López, Lucy Turner, Douglas G Altman and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 23 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Patellofemoral resurfacing and patellar denervation in primary total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2015
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Brian HuttonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Georgia SalantiDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Anna ChaimaniDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Deborah M CaldwellSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Chris SchmidCenter for Evidence-based Medicine, Program in Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Kristian ThorlundStandard Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America; Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Edward MillsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Standard Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Ferrán Catalá-LópezDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain.
Lucy TurnerOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Douglas G AltmanOxford Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United States of America.
David MoherOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteStanford University · USUniversity of Ioannina · GRAgencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios · ESBrown University · USUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895CIHREuropean Research Council 260559Medical Research Council G0902118Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSome have suggested the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses (a technique used to synthesize information to compare multiple interventions) is sub-optimal. We sought to review information addressing this claim.

objectiveTo conduct an overview of existing evaluations of quality of reporting in network meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparisons, and to compile a list of topics which may require detailed reporting guidance to enhance future reporting quality.

methodsAn electronic search of Medline and the Cochrane Registry of methodologic studies (January 2004-August 2013) was performed by an information specialist. Studies describing findings from quality of reporting assessments were sought. Screening of abstracts and full texts was performed by two team members. Descriptors related to all aspects of reporting a network meta-analysis were summarized.

resultsWe included eight reports exploring the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses. From past reviews, authors found several aspects of network meta-analyses were inadequately reported, including primary information about literature searching, study selection, and risk of bias evaluations; statement of the underlying assumptions for network meta-analysis, as well as efforts to verify their validity; details of statistical models used for analyses (including information for both Bayesian and Frequentist approaches); completeness of reporting of findings; and approaches for summarizing probability measures as additional important considerations.

conclusionsWhile few studies were identified, several deficiencies in the current reporting of network meta-analyses were observed. These findings reinforce the need to develop reporting guidance for network meta-analyses. Findings from this review will be used to guide next steps in the development of reporting guidance for network meta-analysis in the format of an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) Statement.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicAbstracting and IndexingPublishingResearch Report

Identifiers

PMID24671099
PMCPMC3966807
OpenAlexW2057787549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.