Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35688599›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Development and design validation of a novel network meta-analysis presentation tool for multiple outcomes: a qualitative descriptive study.

Mark R Phillips, Behnam Sadeghirad, Jason W Busse, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Carlos A Cuello-Garcia, Fernando Kenji Nampo, Yu Jia Guo, Sofia Bzovsky, Raveendhara R Bannuru, Lehana Thabane and 2 more

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

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Influenza vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Mark R PhillipsHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada phillimr@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0923-261X
Behnam SadeghiradHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9422-5232
Jason W BusseHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0178-8712
Romina Brignardello-PetersenHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Carlos A Cuello-GarciaHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Fernando Kenji NampoDepartment of Latin-American Institute of Life and Nature science, Federal University of Latin-American Integration, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.
Yu Jia GuoHealth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sofia BzovskyDepartment of Surgery - Division of Orthopaedics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Raveendhara R BannuruCenter for Treatment Comparison and Integrative Analysis, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lehana ThabaneHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0355-9734
Mohit BhandariHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Impact · CAMcMaster University · CAMRC Biostatistics Unit · GBTufts Medical Center · USUniversidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group recently developed an innovative approach to interpreting results from network meta-analyses (NMA) through minimally and partially contextualised methods; however, the optimal method for presenting results for multiple outcomes using this approach remains uncertain. We; therefore, developed and iteratively modified a presentation method that effectively summarises NMA results of multiple outcomes for clinicians using this new interpretation approach.

designQualitative descriptive study.

settingA steering group of seven individuals with experience in NMA and design validation studies developed two colour-coded presentation formats for evaluation. Through an iterative process, we assessed the validity of both formats to maximise their clarity and ease of interpretation.

participants26 participants including 20 clinicians who routinely provide patient care, 3 research staff/research methodologists and 3 residents.

main outcome measuresTwo team members used qualitative content analysis to independently analyse transcripts of all interviews. The steering group reviewed the analyses and responded with serial modifications of the presentation format.

resultsTo ensure that readers could easily discern the benefits and safety of each included treatment across all assessed outcomes, participants primarily focused on simple information presentations, with intuitive organisational decisions and colour coding. Feedback ultimately resulted in two presentation versions, each preferred by a substantial group of participants, and development of a legend to facilitate interpretation.

conclusionIterative design validation facilitated the development of two novel formats for presenting minimally or partially contextualised NMA results for multiple outcomes. These presentation approaches appeal to audiences that include clinicians with limited familiarity with NMAs.

Indexed as

Network Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignQualitative ResearchEDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)QUALITATIVE RESEARCHSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID35688599
PMCPMC9189833
OpenAlexW4281725730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.