Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39720154›Full record

ReviewBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2024

How to conduct and report checking transitivity and inconsistency in network-meta-analysis: a narrative review including practical worked examples, code and source data for sports and exercise medicine researchers.

Daniel L Belavý, Svenja Kaczorowski, Tobias Saueressig, Patrick J Owen, Adriani Nikolakopoulou

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 8 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. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Daniel L BelavýDepartment für Pflege-, Hebammen- und Therapiewissenschaften, Hochschule für Gesundheit, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9307-832X
Svenja KaczorowskiDepartment für Pflege-, Hebammen- und Therapiewissenschaften, Hochschule für Gesundheit, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8794-3252
Tobias SaueressigPhysio Meets Science GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3332-3856
Patrick J OwenEastern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3924-9375
Adriani NikolakopoulouSchool of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessalonike, Kentrikḗ Makedonía, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of network meta-analysis (NMA) in sport and exercise medicine (SEM) research continues to rise as it enables the comparison of multiple interventions that may not have been assessed in a single randomised controlled trial. NMA can then inform clinicians on potentially better interventions. Despite the increased use of NMA, we have observed that in the SEM field, a key challenge for author groups can be the assessment and reporting of key assumptions, in particular transitivity and consistency. This paper provides SEM researchers with a practical guide on how to approach the transitivity and consistency assumptions of NMA. Using a previously published NMA in the SEM field, we provide the statistical code, source data and worked examples to facilitate understanding and best practice of NMA in the particular field. We hope these resources result in improved conduct and reporting of NMA that ultimately leads to advances in the SEM field.

Indexed as

Evidence based reviewMeta-analysisStatistics

Identifiers

PMID39720154
PMCPMC11667426

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.