ArticlePloS one
The Global Research Collaboration of Network Meta-Analysis: A Social Network Analysis.
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Structural biases in digital health intervention and health equity research: a bibliometric knowledge graph analysis (2015-2025).Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Bibliometric analysis of knowledge maps and future trends of TIM-3 in cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The hot spots and trends of Fc gamma receptor: A bibliometric analysis from 2004 to 2024.Medicine · 2025Article
- Identification of core sub-team on scientific collaboration networks with Shapley method.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- MATCH-IT: A decision support tool for multiple comparisons presenting data from network meta-analysis to facilitate guideline development.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2024Article
- The Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis of Research for Hospital Medication Management Based on the Web of Science Database.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Review
- Analysis of the distribution of trial sites in South Korea using social network analysis.Translational and clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- Quantifying the impact of strong ties in international scientific research collaboration.PloS one · 2023Article
- Worldwide productivity and research trend on fruit quality: a bibliometric study.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- A scientometric analysis of research trends on emerging contaminants in the field of cancer in 2012-2021.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Review
- A bibliometric analysis of global research output on network meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Stakeholder theory and management: Understanding longitudinal collaboration networks.PloS one · 2021Article
- The primary total knee arthroplasty: a global analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Bowling Together: Scientific Collaboration Networks of Demographers at European Population Conferences.European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie · 2019Article
- Biomarkers for detecting prostate cancer: Protocol for an umbrella review with integrated network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.