Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review.
نویسندگان
چکیده
OBJECTIVE To examine how the results of network meta-analyses are reported. DESIGN Methodological systematic review of published reports of network meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012. STUDY SELECTION All network meta-analyses comparing the clinical efficacy of three or more interventions in randomised controlled trials were included, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS The reporting of the network and results was assessed. A composite outcome included the description of the network (number of interventions, direct comparisons, and randomised controlled trials and patients for each comparison) and the reporting of effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis. RESULTS 121 network meta-analyses (55 published in general journals; 48 funded by at least one private source) were included. The network and its geometry (network graph) were not reported in 100 (83%) articles. The effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis were not reported in 48 (40%), 108 (89%), and 43 (36%) articles, respectively. In 52 reports that ranked interventions, 43 did not report the uncertainty in ranking. Overall, 119 (98%) reports of network meta-analyses did not give a description of the network or effect sizes from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis. This finding did not differ by journal type or funding source. CONCLUSIONS The results of network meta-analyses are heterogeneously reported. Development of reporting guidelines to assist authors in writing and readers in critically appraising reports of network meta-analyses is timely.
منابع مشابه
Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review
OBJECTIVE To examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews. DESIGN Methodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews...
متن کاملAnalysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of networkmeta-analyses: methodological systematic review OPEN ACCESS
Objective To examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the keymethodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews. Design Methodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses. Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of E...
متن کاملThe PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting O...
متن کاملA PRISMA assessment of reporting the quality of published dental systematic reviews in Iran, up to 2017
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure correct interpretation of study results by readers. Systematic reviews (SRs) are of critical importance in evidence-based dentistry. This study assessed the reporting quality of published dental SRs in Iran.METHODS: The PubMed and ISI electronic databases were searched to collect published Iranian dental SRs up to the end of...
متن کاملThe methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar.
OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (USA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING From systematic reviews of randomized trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- BMJ
دوره 348 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2014