Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25926144›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Methods and characteristics of published network meta-analyses using individual patient data: protocol for a scoping review.

Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Charlene Soobiah, Andrea C Tricco, Meghan J Elliott, Sharon E Straus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

5 authors.

Areti Angeliki VeronikiLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Charlene SoobiahLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andrea C TriccoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Meghan J ElliottLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sharon E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

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

Meta-Analysis as TopicBiasHumansInformation DisseminationPublishingResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topicindividual patient dataknowledge translationmixed treatment comparisonmultiple treatments meta-analysisnetwork meta-analysisresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID25926144
PMCPMC4420933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.