Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32243458›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis.

Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Julian P T Higgins, Theodoros Papakonstantinou, Anna Chaimani, Cinzia Del Giovane, Matthias Egger, Georgia Salanti

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 983 papers, 98 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
983citing papers in PubMed, 98 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

983 citing papers in PubMed, 98 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  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

923 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.

Adriani NikolakopoulouInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Julian P T HigginsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8323-2514
Theodoros PapakonstantinouInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6630-6817
Anna ChaimaniUniversité de Paris, Research Center of Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS UMR1153), INSERM, INRA, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2828-6832
Cinzia Del GiovaneInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7462-5132
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-8508

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evaluation of the credibility of results from a meta-analysis has become an important part of the evidence synthesis process. We present a methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared. METHODOLOGY: CINeMA considers 6 domains: (i) within-study bias, (ii) reporting bias, (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, (v) heterogeneity, and (vi) incoherence. Key to judgments about within-study bias and indirectness is the percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much information each study contributes to the results from network meta-analysis. The contribution matrix can easily be computed using a freely available web application. In evaluating imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence, we consider the impact of these components of variability in forming clinical decisions.

conclusionsVia 3 examples, we show that CINeMA improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process. CINeMA is easy to apply even in large and complicated networks.

Indexed as

Confidence IntervalsCoronary Artery DiseaseElectrocardiographyExercise TestHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32243458
PMCPMC7122720

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.