ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2023
Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool).
Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of PD-1 inhibitors as second-line treatment for advanced squamous esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis with a focus on PD-L1 expression levels.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Pooled it
- Risk of Bias in Network Meta-Analysis (RoB NMA) tool.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- A novel way to integrate economic information into clinical practice guidelines.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool).Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Assessing the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews: primer for authors of overviews of systematic reviews.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.e. because it was designed to assess biases only) or other similar quality appraisal tools (eg, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR 2]) to assess quality of systematic reviews. The RoB NMA tool will assess NMA biases and limitations regarding how the analysis was planned, data were analysed and results were presented, including the way in which the evidence was assembled and interpreted.
objectivesConduct (a) a Delphi process to determine expert opinion on an item's inclusion and (b) a knowledge user survey to widen its impact.
designCross-sectional survey and Delphi process.
methodsDelphi panellists were asked to rate whether items should be included. All agreed-upon item were included in a second round of the survey (defined as 70% agreement). We surveyed knowledge users' views and preferences about the importance, utility and willingness to use the RoB NMA tool to evaluate evidence in practice and in policymaking. We included 12 closed and 10 open-ended questions, and we followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks.
results22 items were entered into a Delphi survey of which 28 respondents completed round 1, and 22 completed round 2. Seven items did not reach consensus in round 2. A total of 298 knowledge users participated in the survey (14% respondent rate). 75% indicated that their organisation produced NMAs, and 78% showed high interest in the tool, especially if they had received adequate training (84%). Most knowledge users and Delphi panellists preferred a tool to assess
conclusionsThis Delphi process and knowledge user survey informs the development of the RoB NMA tool.
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.