Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641661›Full record

ReviewJournal of anesthesia2022

Interpreting and assessing confidence in network meta-analysis results: an introduction for clinicians.

Alan Yang, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Kazuyoshi Aoyama

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Short-term efficacy of biologics in moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa: A systematic review and NMA.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Alan YangProgram in Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Petros PechlivanoglouProgram in Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Kazuyoshi AoyamaProgram in Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada. kazu.aoyama@utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7502-0896

Funding

CIHR 179857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to provide clinicians with introductory guidance for interpreting and assessing confidence in on Network meta-analysis (NMA) results.

methodsWe reviewed current literature on NMA and summarized key points.

resultsNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical method for comparing the efficacy of three or more interventions simultaneously in a single analysis by synthesizing both direct and indirect evidence across a network of randomized clinical trials. It has become increasingly popular in healthcare, since direct evidence (head-to-head randomized clinical trials) are not always available. NMA methods are categorized as either Bayesian or frequentist, and while the two mostly provide similar results, the two approaches are theoretically different and require different interpretations of the results.

conclusionsWe recommend a careful approach to interpreting NMA results and the validity of an NMA depends on its underlying statistical assumptions and the quality of the evidence used in the NMA.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremConfidence intervalsCredible intervalsIndirect treatment comparisonsMultiple treatment comparisonsNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35641661
PMCPMC9338903

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.