ArticleScientific reports2016
Epidemiology Characteristics, Methodological Assessment and Reporting of Statistical Analysis of Network Meta-Analyses in the Field of Cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Pooled it
- Associating the risk of three urinary cancers with obesity and overweight: an overview with evidence mapping of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- The value of four imaging modalities in diagnosing lymph node involvement in rectal cancer: an overview and adjusted indirect comparison.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2019Pooled it
- What can we learn from network meta-analyses published in top medical journals.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Methodological improvements are needed in network meta analyses of antidiabetic drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- The association between body mass index and the risk of different urinary cancers: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.Medicine · 2020Article
- The association of serum uric acid levels in psoriasis patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Article
- The Use of (Network) Meta-Analysis in Clinical Oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine.Medicine · 2018Review
- Article
- Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Is Network Meta-analysis a Revolutionary Statistical Tool for Improving the Reliability of Clinical Trial Results? A Brief Overview and Emerging Issues Arising.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
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
Because of the methodological complexity of network meta-analyses (NMAs), NMAs may be more vulnerable to methodological risks than conventional pair-wise meta-analysis. Our study aims to investigate epidemiology characteristics, conduction of literature search, methodological quality and reporting of statistical analysis process in the field of cancer based on PRISMA extension statement and modified AMSTAR checklist. We identified and included 102 NMAs in the field of cancer. 61 NMAs were conducted using a Bayesian framework. Of them, more than half of NMAs did not report assessment of convergence (60.66%). Inconsistency was assessed in 27.87% of NMAs. Assessment of heterogeneity in traditional meta-analyses was more common (42.62%) than in NMAs (6.56%). Most of NMAs did not report assessment of similarity (86.89%) and did not used GRADE tool to assess quality of evidence (95.08%). 43 NMAs were adjusted indirect comparisons, the methods used were described in 53.49% NMAs. Only 4.65% NMAs described the details of handling of multi group trials and 6.98% described the methods of similarity assessment. The median total AMSTAR-score was 8.00 (IQR: 6.00-8.25). Methodological quality and reporting of statistical analysis did not substantially differ by selected general characteristics. Overall, the quality of NMAs in the field of cancer was generally acceptable.
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.