Use of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews: a survey of authors

نویسنده

  • Andrew W. Lee
چکیده

BACKGROUND The reporting of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews has increased rapidly since 2009. This qualitative study was undertaken to identify authors' perceptions of the use of these methods and of what standards for conduct and reporting should apply. METHODS This is a survey of authors of systematic reviews reporting network meta-analysis. RESULTS The response rate was 32 % of the authors contacted, with these authors responsible for 34 % of the fully published systematic reviews identified within the period searched. Almost all authors would use the method again. Elements of reporting standards were proposed. Responses revealed some tensions between the view that use of network meta-analysis should be more easily accessible, particularly in the form of software tools, and concern that there is some inappropriate use of the methods, which wider use and greater accessibility could exacerbate. CONCLUSIONS Authors demonstrated strong support for adoption of standards for conduct and reporting. The elements of reporting standards proposed are consistent with those included in the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement. Adoption of standards for conduct and reporting will be a significant step towards clarifying what is appropriate use of the methods and what is not. This should be followed by the development of a critical appraisal tool to support end users of systematic reviews reporting network meta-analysis.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

بررسی میزان انطباق چکیده مقالات مرور نظام‌مند و متاآنالیز پژوهشگران ایران نمایه شده در پایگاه وب آو ساینس با بیانیه پریسما

Introduction: Systematic review is an approach with precise identification of all the relevant studies leading to more objective and scientific conclusions. Unless the structure of the studies comply with internationally accepted standards, they cannot effectively be responsive to objectives of the studies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the compliance ration of Iranian Systematic Rev...

متن کامل

The Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool for Use in Systematic Reviews: Addressing Questions of Prevalence

Background Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combin...

متن کامل

پریزما؛ موارد ترجیحی در گزارش مقالات مروری منظم و فراتحلیل

Today, understanding of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and their practical use is essential for who concerned with society's health. Most of the medical reports invoked to these reviews and statements and it is necessary for scientific experts to be familiar with their performing rules and the way of their writing. The basic sciences specialists and clinical professionals study them to ...

متن کامل

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly...

متن کامل

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Background Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. ...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره 5  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2016