SynthesisPloS one2015
An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of network meta-analyses for pharmacological treatment of common mental disorders.Evidence-based mental health · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Network meta-analysis of first- and second-generation protease inhibitors for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1: efficacy based on RVR and SVR 24.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- 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
- APPLICATION OF QUANTILE DISCRETIZATION AND BAYESIAN NETWORK ANALYSIS TO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CYSTIC FIBROSIS DATA SETS.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2024Article
- Review
- A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- An empirical comparison of Bayesian modelling strategies for missing binary outcome data in network meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine.Medicine · 2018Review
- From Population Databases to Research and Informed Health Decisions and Policy.Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
- Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- Epidemiology Characteristics, Methodological Assessment and Reporting of Statistical Analysis of Network Meta-Analyses in the Field of Cancer.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Correction: An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review.PloS one · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the methodological quality of published network meta-analysis.
designSystematic review.
methodsWe searched the medical literature for network meta-analyses of pharmaceuticals. We assessed general study characteristics, study transparency and reproducibility, methodological approach, and reporting of findings. We compared studies published in journals with lower impact factors with those published in journals with higher impact factors, studies published prior to January 1st, 2013 with those published after that date, and studies supported financially by industry with those supported by non-profit institutions or that received no support.
resultsThe systematic literature search identified 854 citations. Three hundred and eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. The number of network meta-analyses has grown rapidly, with 48% of studies published since January 2013. The majority of network meta-analyses were supported by a non-profit institution or received no support (68%). We found considerable inconsistencies among reviewed studies. Eighty percent reported search terms, 61% a network diagram, 65% sufficient data to replicate the analysis, and 90% the characteristics of included trials. Seventy percent performed a risk of bias assessment of included trials, 40% an assessment of model fit, and 56% a sensitivity analysis. Among studies with a closed loop, 69% examined the consistency of direct and indirect evidence. Sixty-four percent of studies presented the full matrix of head-to-head treatment comparisons. For Bayesian studies, 41% reported the probability that each treatment was best, 31% reported treatment ranking, and 16% included the model code or referenced publicly-available code. Network meta-analyses published in higher impact factors journals and those that did not receive industry support performed better across the assessment criteria. We found few differences between older and newer studies.
conclusionsThere is substantial variation in the network meta-analysis literature. Consensus among guidelines is needed improve the methodological quality, transparency, and consistency of study conduct and reporting.
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.