Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37420161›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.

Herman Sehmbi, Susanne Retter, Ushma J Shah, Derek Nguyen, Janet Martin, Vishal Uppal

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Herman SehmbiDepartment of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Susanne RetterDepartment of Anesthesia, Pain Management & Perioperative Medicine, Dalhousie University, 10W Victoria Building, 1276 South Park St, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada.
Ushma J ShahDepartment of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Derek NguyenSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, ON, Canada.
Janet MartinDepartment of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Vishal UppalDepartment of Anesthesia, Pain Management & Perioperative Medicine, Dalhousie University, 10W Victoria Building, 1276 South Park St, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada. v.uppal@dal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7263-2072
Western University · CADalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe scientific rigour of the conduct and reporting of anesthesiology network meta-analyses (NMAs) is unknown. This systematic review and meta-epidemiological study assessed the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in anesthesiology.

methodsWe searched four databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, for anesthesiology NMAs published from inception to October 2020. We assessed the compliance of NMAs against A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA), and PRISMA checklists. We measured the compliance across various items in AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists and provided recommendations to improve quality.

resultsUsing the AMSTAR-2 rating method, 84% (52/62) of NMAs were rated "critically low." Quantitatively, the median [interquartile range] AMSTAR-2 score was 55 [44-69]%, while the PRISMA score was 70 [61-81]%. Methodological and reporting scores showed a strong correlation (R = 0.78). Anesthesiology NMAs had a higher AMSTAR-2 score and PRISMA score if they were published in higher impact factor journals (P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively) or followed PRISMA-NMA reporting guidelines (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Network meta-analyses from China had lower scores (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Neither score improved over time (P = 0.69 and P = 0.67, respectively).

conclusionThe current study highlights numerous methodological and reporting deficiencies in anesthesiology NMAs. Although the AMSTAR tool has been used to assess the methodological quality of NMAs, dedicated tools for conducting and assessing the methodological quality of NMAs are urgently required. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021227997); first submitted 23 January 2021.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyChecklistEpidemiologic StudiesHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignResearch ReportAMSTARanesthesiologymethodologynetwork meta-analysisPRISMA-NMAreporting

Identifiers

PMID37420161
OpenAlexW4383498320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.