Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32475340›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2020

Statistical analyses and quality of individual participant data network meta-analyses were suboptimal: a cross-sectional study.

Ya Gao, Shuzhen Shi, Muyang Li, Xinyue Luo, Ming Liu, Kelu Yang, Junhua Zhang, Fujian Song, Jinhui Tian

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The development of network meta-analysis.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ya GaoEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No.199, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, 730000, Gansu Province, China.
Shuzhen ShiEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No.199, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, 730000, Gansu Province, China.
Muyang LiThe Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xinyue LuoThe Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Ming LiuEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No.199, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, 730000, Gansu Province, China.
Kelu YangEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Junhua ZhangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Fujian SongPublic Health and Health Services Research, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. tianjh@lzu.edu.cn.
Jinhui TianEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No.199, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, 730000, Gansu Province, China. fujian.song@uea.ac.uk.
Lanzhou University · CNLanzhou University Second Hospital · CNTianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNetwork meta-analyses using individual participant data (IPD-NMAs) have been increasingly used to compare the effects of multiple interventions. Although there have been many studies on statistical methods for IPD-NMAs, it is unclear whether there are statistical defects in published IPD-NMAs and whether the reporting of statistical analyses has improved. This study aimed to investigate statistical methods used and assess the reporting and methodological quality of IPD-NMAs.

methodsWe searched four bibliographic databases to identify published IPD-NMAs. The methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 and reporting quality assessed based on PRISMA-IPD and PRISMA-NMA. We performed stratified analyses and correlation analyses to explore the factors that might affect quality.

resultsWe identified 21 IPD-NMAs. Only 23.8% of the included IPD-NMAs reported statistical techniques used for missing participant data, 42.9% assessed the consistency, and none assessed the transitivity. None of the included IPD-NMAs reported sources of funding for trials included, only 9.5% stated pre-registration of protocols, and 28.6% assessed the risk of bias in individual studies. For reporting quality, compliance rates were lower than 50.0% for more than half of the items. Less than 15.0% of the IPD-NMAs reported data integrity, presented the network geometry, or clarified risk of bias across studies. IPD-NMAs with statistical or epidemiological authors often better assessed the inconsistency (P = 0.017). IPD-NMAs with a priori protocol were associated with higher reporting quality in terms of search (P = 0.046), data collection process (P = 0.031), and syntheses of results (P = 0.006).

conclusionsThe reporting of statistical methods and compliance rates of methodological and reporting items of IPD-NMAs were suboptimal. Authors of future IPD-NMAs should address the identified flaws and strictly adhere to methodological and reporting guidelines.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicIndividual participant dataMethodological qualityNetwork meta-analysisReporting qualityStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID32475340
PMCPMC7262764
OpenAlexW3028924352

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.