ArticleBMJ open2021
Lag times in the publication of network meta-analyses: a survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in Volume, Timeliness, and Reporting Quality of Oncology Systematic and Scoping Reviews: A 25-Year Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Publication lag in interventional, RCT-based meta-analyses within top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing Meta-Analyses with ChatGPT in the Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Tolerance of Systemic Therapies in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- COVID-19 in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon: Incidence, Clinical Management, and Mortality by Social Determinants of Health, Symptomatology, and Comorbidities in the Xingu Health Region.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Factors associated with 5-min APGAR score, death and survival in neonatal intensive care: a case-control study.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe assessed the extent of lag times in the publication and indexing of network meta-analyses (NMAs). STUDY
designThis was a survey of published NMAs on drug interventions.
settingNMAs indexed in PubMed (searches updated in May 2020). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Lag times were measured as the time between the last systematic search and the article submission, acceptance, online publication, indexing and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocation dates. Time-to-event analyses were performed considering independent variables (geographical origin, Journal Impact Factor, Scopus CiteScore, open access status) (SPSS V.24, R/RStudio).
resultsWe included 1245 NMAs. The median time from last search to article submission was 6.8 months (204 days (IQR 95-381)), and to publication was 11.6 months. Only 5% of authors updated their search after first submission. There is a very slightly decreasing historical trend of acceptance (rho=-0.087; p=0.010), online publication (rho=-0.080; p=0.008) and indexing (rho=-0.080; p=0.007) lag times. Journal Impact Factor influenced the MeSH allocation process, but not the other lag times. The comparison between open access versus subscription journals confirmed meaningless differences in acceptance, online publication and indexing lag times.
conclusionEfforts by authors to update their search before submission are needed to reduce evidence production time. Peer reviewers and editors should ensure authors' compliance with NMA standards. The accuracy of these findings depends on the accuracy of the metadata used; as we evaluated only NMA on drug interventions, results may not be generalisable to all types of studies.
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.