Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28403893›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses.

L Mbuagbaw, B Rochwerg, R Jaeschke, D Heels-Andsell, W Alhazzani, L Thabane, Gordon H Guyatt

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 362 papers, 114 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
362citing papers in PubMed, 114 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

362 citing papers in PubMed, 114 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Efficacy of Biological and Steroid Therapies in Adolescent and Adult Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis With Meta-Regression.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

302 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

L MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
B RochwergDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
R JaeschkeDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
D Heels-AndsellDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
W AlhazzaniDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
L ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. guyatt@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When randomized trials have addressed multiple interventions for the same health problem, network meta-analyses (NMAs) permit researchers to statistically pool data from individual studies including evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. Grasping the significance of the results of NMAs may be very challenging. Authors may present the findings from such analyses in several numerical and graphical ways. In this paper, we discuss ranking strategies and visual depictions of rank, including the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve method. We present ranking approaches' merits and limitations and provide an example of how to apply the results of a NMA to clinical practice.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalMeta-Analysis as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSepsisTreatment OutcomeAdvantagesLimitationsNetwork meta-analysisRankingSUCRA

Identifiers

PMID28403893
PMCPMC5389085

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.