ArticleBMJ open2015
Methods and characteristics of published network meta-analyses using individual patient data: protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis for Identifying the Optimal Taxane-Based Chemotherapy Regimens for Treating Gastric Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative safety and effectiveness of serotonin receptor antagonists in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Network meta-analysis of intrathyroidal injection of combined dexamethasone with lidocaine for subacute thyroiditis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Patent Medicines for Cervical High-risk Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2023Review
- Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma: a systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023Article
- Investigation on the Efficiency of Chinese Herbal Injections combined with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Treating Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma based on Multidimensional Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- A Multidimensional Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Chinese Herbal Injections for Treating Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Comparative efficacy, safety and cost of oral Chinese patent medicines for rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Chinese Herbal Injections Combined with Paclitaxel Plus Cisplatin for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Multidimensional Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Review
- Investigation on the Efficiency of Chinese Herbal Injections for Treating Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Vinorelbine and Cisplatin Based on Multidimensional Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- The Optimal Chinese Herbal Injections for Use With Radiotherapy to Treat Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Performing Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis in R with the pcnetmeta Package.Journal of statistical software · 2017Article
- A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIndividual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) offers advantages over aggregate MA of using standardised criteria for patient characteristics across trials, and allowing reliable investigation of subgroup effects of interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows for the comparison of multiple treatments in a comprehensive analysis and the determination of the best treatment among several competing treatments, including those that have never been compared in a head-to-head study. Including IPD in NMA may enable the prevention of misleading inferences due to several biases, such as aggregation bias. Application of IPD-NMA methods in healthcare have begun to appear in medical journals. Our objective is to conduct a scoping review of existing IPD-NMA methods, and summarise their properties. We also aim to describe the characteristics of empirical IPD-NMAs, and examine how their results are reported. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search relevant electronic databases from inception until October 2014 (eg, MEDLINE), grey literature, and Google. The scoping review will consider published and unpublished papers that report completion of an IPD-NMA, describe a method, or report the methodological quality of IPD-NMA. We will include IPD-NMA of any quantitative study (eg, experimental, quasiexperimental, observational studies). Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles, and will complete data abstraction. The anticipated outcome will be a collection of all the IPD-NMAs completed to date, and a description of their methods and reporting of results. We will create summary tables providing the characteristics of the included studies, and the various methods. Quantitative data (eg, number of patients) will be summarised by medians and IQRs, and categorical data (eg, type of effect size) by frequencies and percentages. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as our study will not include confidential participant data and interventions. We will disseminate our results through an open access, peer-reviewed publication.
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.