Publication:
Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review.

cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0002-3830-8508
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid94cc1dd7-9dd1-48ee-9b3e-dce1c3c31412
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidade91a16-6e2b-4d1c-b538-15aac7c36747
dc.contributor.authorZarin, Wasifa
dc.contributor.authorVeroniki, Areti Angeliki
dc.contributor.authorNincic, Vera
dc.contributor.authorVafaei, Afshin
dc.contributor.authorReynen, Emily
dc.contributor.authorMotiwala, Sanober S
dc.contributor.authorAntony, Jesmin
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, Shannon M
dc.contributor.authorRios, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorDaly, Caitlin
dc.contributor.authorEwusie, Joycelyne
dc.contributor.authorPetropoulou, Maria
dc.contributor.authorNikolakopoulou, Adriani
dc.contributor.authorChaimani, Anna
dc.contributor.authorSalanti, Georgia
dc.contributor.authorStraus, Sharon E
dc.contributor.authorTricco, Andrea C
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-24T19:11:45Z
dc.date.available2024-10-24T19:11:45Z
dc.date.issued2017-01-05
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND Network meta-analysis (NMA) has become a popular method to compare more than two treatments. This scoping review aimed to explore the characteristics and methodological quality of knowledge synthesis approaches underlying the NMA process. We also aimed to assess the statistical methods applied using the Analysis subdomain of the ISPOR checklist. METHODS Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until April 14, 2015. References of relevant reviews were scanned. Eligible studies compared at least four different interventions from randomised controlled trials with an appropriate NMA approach. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data abstraction of included articles. All discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. Data analysis involved quantitative (frequencies) and qualitative (content analysis) methods. Quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool for the conduct of knowledge synthesis and the ISPOR tool for statistical analysis. RESULTS After screening 3538 citations and 877 full-text papers, 456 NMAs were included. These were published between 1997 and 2015, with 95% published after 2006. Most were conducted in Europe (51%) or North America (31%), and approximately one-third reported public sources of funding. Overall, 84% searched two or more electronic databases, 62% searched for grey literature, 58% performed duplicate study selection and data abstraction (independently), and 62% assessed risk of bias. Seventy-eight (17%) NMAs relied on previously conducted systematic reviews to obtain studies for inclusion in their NMA. Based on the AMSTAR tool, almost half of the NMAs incorporated quality appraisal results to formulate conclusions, 36% assessed publication bias, and 16% reported the source of funding. Based on the ISPOR tool, half of the NMAs did not report if an assessment for consistency was conducted or whether they accounted for inconsistency when present. Only 13% reported heterogeneity assumptions for the random-effects model. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge synthesis methods and analytical process for NMAs are poorly reported and need improvement.
dc.description.numberOfPages11
dc.description.sponsorshipInstitut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
dc.identifier.doi10.7892/boris.94322
dc.identifier.pmid28052774
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1186/s12916-016-0764-6
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/149039
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.relation.ispartofBMC medicine
dc.relation.issn1741-7015
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BECFE17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BDB9E17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.subjectAMSTAR
dc.subjectISPOR
dc.subjectMixed-treatment
dc.subjectMultiple treatments
dc.subjectResearch reporting
dc.subject.ddc600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
dc.subject.ddc300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::360 - Social problems & social services
dc.titleCharacteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review.
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
dspace.file.typetext
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.startPage3
oaire.citation.volume15
oairecerif.author.affiliationInstitut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
oairecerif.author.affiliationInstitut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
oairecerif.author.affiliation2Berner Institut für Hausarztmedizin (BIHAM)
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.eprints.legacyId94322
unibe.journal.abbrevTitleBMC MED
unibe.refereedTRUE
unibe.subtype.articlejournal

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
Zarin BMCMed 2017.pdf
Size:
1.4 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Content:
published

Collections