Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26157739›Full record

ReviewHeart, lung and vessels2015

The attractiveness of network meta-analysis: a comprehensive systematic and narrative review.

Teresa Greco, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, Omar Saleh, Laura Pasin, Luca Cabrini, Alberto Zangrillo, Giovanni Landoni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in Heart, lung and vessels, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Article
  13. Leptin Levels in Acute and Recovered Eating Disorders: An Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Teresa GrecoDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy ; Laboratorio di Statistica Medica, Biometria ed Epidemiologia "G. A. Maccacaro", Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e di Comunità, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe Biondi-ZoccaiDepartment of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Omar SalehDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Laura PasinDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Luca CabriniDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Alberto ZangrilloDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni LandoniDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network meta-analysis provides a global estimate of comparative treatment effectiveness combining both direct and indirect evidence. In the past decade, the medical literature has witnessed a rapid increase in the possibility to combine evidence from different treatment comparisons. This opportunity is attractive for clinicians since their major concern is to identify the single best available treatment. In addition, despite the sudden increase of publications concerning network meta-analysis, only a limited number focus on methodological and statistical aspects, and many issues remain unclear. The aim of our work was to explore and emphasize the potential attractiveness of network meta-analyses. We performed a systematic and narrative review (last updated on April 15, 2014) in order to assess the scholarly diffusion of network meta-analyses. The following data were collected: author identification, year and journal of publication, PubMed index, number of treatments and studies included, characteristics of network configuration, nature of primary outcome, clinical indication, type of intervention investigated and medical area. Since 2003 there has been an exponential increase in the number of published network meta-analyses. Out of 340 articles included according to our selection criteria, encompassing 248 treatment networks, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases were the most prevalent topics, with an average of 5 treatments being compared stemming from an average of 10 controlled trials. In conclusion, network meta-analyses are becoming increasingly attractive as they offer a comprehensive framework for decision-making. Whether they will also contribute to improvements in patient outlook remains to be proven.

Indexed as

disseminationevidence-based medicinenetwork meta-analysissurveysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26157739
PMCPMC4476767

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.