Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39108176›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025

Introduction to network meta-analysis: understanding what it is, how it is done, and how it can be used for decision-making.

Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Gordon H Guyatt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Therapeutic evaluation of immunomodulators and immunosuppressants in progressive multiple sclerosis: summary of a Cochrane systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

2 authors.

Romina Brignardello-PetersenDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact; McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact; McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network meta-analysis (NMA), a statistical technique that allows systematic reviewers to simultaneously compare more than 2 alternatives, makes use of indirect evidence from studies comparing interventions of interest to a common comparator. The capacity for multiple simultaneous comparisons makes NMA appealing for evidence-based decision-makers. This article, aimed at users of systematic reviews (SRs) with NMAs and at those who are considering conducting SRs with NMAs, provides an introductory level overview of this topic. We describe the main considerations that those conducting systematic reviews with NMA should bear in mind, including decisions regarding grouping interventions into analysis nodes, and testing the assumptions that assure the validity of NMA. We explain and illustrate how both systematic reviewers and users should draw conclusions from NMA that are appropriate and useful for decision-making. Finally, we provide a list of tools that facilitate the conduct and interpretation of NMAs.

Indexed as

Decision MakingNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicHumansSystematic Reviews as Topicmultiple comparisonsnetwork meta-analysissystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID39108176
PMCPMC11879513

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.