Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27685998›Full record

ArticlePloS one

The Global Research Collaboration of Network Meta-Analysis: A Social Network Analysis.

Lun Li, Ferrán Catalá-López, Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo, Jinhui Tian, Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent, Dawid Pieper, Long Ge, Liang Yao, Quan Wang, Kehu Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. A bibliometric analysis of global research output on network meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. The primary total knee arthroplasty: a global analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020
    Article
  16. Bowling Together: Scientific Collaboration Networks of Demographers at European Population Conferences.European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Lun LiDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Ferrán Catalá-LópezDepartment of Medicine, University of Valencia/ INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain.
Adolfo Alonso-ArroyoDepartment of History of Science and Documentation, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Jinhui TianEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Rafael Aleixandre-BenaventIngenio-Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) and UISYS-University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Department for Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Long GeEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Liang YaoEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Quan WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital, Four Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Kehu YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveResearch collaborations in biomedical research have evolved over time. No studies have addressed research collaboration in network meta-analysis (NMA). In this study, we used social network analysis methods to characterize global collaboration patterns of published NMAs over the past decades.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched (at 9th July, 2015) to include systematic reviews incorporating NMA. Two reviewers independently selected studies and cross-checked the standardized data. Data was analyzed using Ucinet 6.0 and SPSS 17.0. NetDraw software was used to draw social networks.

results771 NMAs published in 336 journals from 3459 authors and 1258 institutions in 49 countries through the period 1997-2015 were included. More than three-quarters (n = 625; 81.06%) of the NMAs were published in the last 5-years. The BMJ (4.93%), Current Medical Research and Opinion (4.67%) and PLOS One (4.02%) were the journals that published the greatest number of NMAs. The UK and the USA (followed by Canada, China, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany) headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of NMAs. The top 20 authors and institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. Overall, 43 clusters of authors (four major groups: one with 37 members, one with 12 members, one with 11 members and one with 10 members) and 21 clusters of institutions (two major groups: one with 62 members and one with 20 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were affiliated with academic institutions and private consulting firms. 181 consulting firms and pharmaceutical industries (14.39% of institutions) were involved in 199 NMAs (25.81% of total publications). Although there were increases in international and inter-institution collaborations, the research collaboration by authors, institutions and countries were still weak and most collaboration groups were small sizes.

conclusionScientific production on NMA is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries (most notably, the UK, the USA and Canada). More authors, institutions and nations are becoming involved in research collaborations, but frequently with limited international collaborations.

Identifiers

PMID27685998
PMCPMC5042468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.