ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2026
Challenges in Treatment Node Classification for Network Meta-Analysis of Non-Pharmacological Interventions: Insights From a Researcher Survey.
Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNon-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are diverse and complex, making treatment node classification in network meta-analyses (NMAs) particularly challenging. Accurate node classification is essential, as it directly affects the validity and applicability of NMA findings. The aim of this study was to explore current practices in treatment node classification in NMAs of NPIs and identify key challenges.
methodsAn online survey was conducted among the first and corresponding authors of NMAs of NPIs published in first-quartile journals over the past five years. Eligible authors were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL on February 4, 2025. A self-administered questionnaire assessed experiences, perceptions, and recommendations regarding node classification. Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and qualitative responses were analyzed thematically.
resultsOf 471 eligible authors contacted, 32 responded (response rate: 6.8%). Most (43.8%) had 5-10 years of experience in evidence synthesis, and 81.3% had published 1-5 NMAs of NPIs. Nearly all reported difficulties in node classification due to within-intervention and comparator variation, incorporating delivery features, balancing lumping versus splitting, and meeting the transitivity assumption. Respondents classified nodes by following prespecified protocols, relying on the characteristics of included studies, or using mixed approaches. While views on standard guidance were mixed, several respondents supported the development of simplified guidance for major research areas to support consistent node classification.
conclusionsResearchers encounter considerable difficulties in classifying treatment nodes in NMAs of NPIs. Findings highlight the need for prespecified and structured frameworks for certain types of NPIs to improve reproducibility, and reliability in future NMAs.
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.