ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2015
Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part I - Credibility.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Management of left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions with curative intent: a network meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- What Is the Relative Effectiveness of the Various Surgical Treatment Options for Distal Radius Fractures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2021Pooled it
- What Is the Best Evidence for Management of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 22 Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Pooled it
- Do External Supports Improve Dynamic Balance in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability? A Network Meta-analysis.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Pooled it
- Introduction to network meta-analysis: understanding what it is, how it is done, and how it can be used for decision-making.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool).Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- A clinician's guide to network meta-analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Misconceptions and the Acceptance of Evidence-based Nonsurgical Interventions for Knee Osteoarthritis. A Qualitative Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Article
- CORR Insights®: Postoperative Thromboprophylaxis With New Oral Anticoagulants is Superior to LMWH in Hip Arthroplasty Surgery: Findings from the Swedish Registry.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Article
- Cochrane in CORR®: Topical NSAIDs for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Adults.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
- Choosing the optimum strategy for rTMS.Evidence-based mental health · 2018Article
- Editorial: Sparse-data Bias-What the Savvy Reader Needs to Know.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
- Editorial: Getting the Most from What You Read in Orthopaedic Journals.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Which psychotherapy for PTSD?Evidence-based mental health · 2016Article
- CORR (®) Insights: Is Local Infiltration Analgesia Superior to Peripheral Nerve Blockade for Pain Management after THA: A Network Meta-analysis.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2016Article
- Which drug is the best bet when your bipolar patient gets depressed?Evidence-based mental health · 2015Article
- Editorial: "Pencil and Paper" Research? Network Meta-analysis and Other Study Designs That Do Not Enroll Patients.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional meta-analyses quantify the relative effectiveness of two interventions based on direct (that is, head-to-head) evidence typically derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For many medical conditions, however, multiple treatment options exist and not all have been compared directly. This issue limits the utility of traditional synthetic techniques such as meta-analyses, since these approaches can only pool and compare evidence across interventions that have been compared directly by source studies. Network meta-analyses (NMA) use direct and indirect comparisons to quantify the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options. Interpreting the methodologic quality and results of NMAs may be challenging, as they use complex methods that may be unfamiliar to surgeons; yet for these surgeons to use these studies in their practices, they need to be able to determine whether they can trust the results of NMAs. The first judgment of trust requires an assessment of the credibility of the NMA methodology; the second judgment of trust requires a determination of certainty in effect sizes and directions. In this Users' Guide for Surgeons, Part I, we show the application of evaluation criteria for determining the credibility of a NMA through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics. In the subsequent article (Part II), we help readers evaluate the level of certainty NMAs can provide in terms of treatment effect sizes and directions.
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.