ArticleBMC pediatrics2018
Network meta-analysis: users' guide for pediatricians.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mind-body intervention for post-traumatic stress disorder in adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Systemic corticosteroids for the prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of liver support devices in acute and hyperacute liver failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Physical relaxation for occupational stress in healthcare workers: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of occupational health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Considerations in reviewing network meta-analyses of heterogeneous clinical trial designs: a methodological review in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2026Article
- Introduction to network meta-analysis: understanding what it is, how it is done, and how it can be used for decision-making.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool).Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and safety of available preventive tuberculosis treatment regimens for children and adolescents: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Article
- Herbal Granules of Heat-Clearing and Detoxifying for Children with Mild Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Treatments for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Management in Adolescents.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2021Review
- The relative effectiveness of psychotherapeutic techniques and delivery modalities for chronic pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.HRB open research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analytic tool that allows simultaneous comparison between several management/treatment alternatives even when direct comparisons of the alternatives (such as the case in which treatments are compared against placebo and have not been compared against each other) are unavailable. Though there are still a limited number of pediatric NMAs published, the rapid increase in NMAs in other areas suggests pediatricians will soon be frequently facing this new form of evidence summary. DISCUSSION: Evaluating the NMA evidence requires serial judgments on the creditability of the process of NMA conduct, and evidence quality assessment. First clinicians need to evaluate the basic standards applicable to any meta-analysis (e.g. comprehensive search, duplicate assessment of eligibility, risk of bias, and data abstraction). Then evaluate specific issues related to NMA including precision, transitivity, coherence, and rankings.
conclusionsIn this article we discuss how clinicians can evaluate the credibility of NMA methods, and how they can make judgments regarding the quality (certainty) of the evidence. We illustrate the concepts using recent pediatric NMA publications.
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.