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

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.

Citing Articles

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.

Sehmbi H, Retter S, Shah U, Nguyen D, Martin J, Uppal V Can J Anaesth. 2023; 70(9):1461-1473.

PMID: 37420161 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02510-6.

Assessing the Quality and Coherence of Network Meta-Analyses of Biologics in Plaque Psoriasis: What Does All This Evidence Synthesis Tell Us?.

Wright E, Yasmeen N, Malottki K, Sawyer L, Borg E, Schwenke C Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2020; 11(1):181-220.

PMID: 33351178 PMC: 7858721. DOI: 10.1007/s13555-020-00463-y.

Preoxygenation before intubation in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Fong K, Au S, Ng G Crit Care. 2019; 23(1):319.

PMID: 31533792 PMC: 6751657. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-019-2596-1.

The Effect of Disease Modifying Therapies on Disability Progression in Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Overview of Meta-Analyses.

Claflin S, Broadley S, Taylor B Front Neurol. 2019; 9:1150.

PMID: 30687214 PMC: 6335290. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01150.

Mapping the characteristics of network meta-analyses on drug therapy: A systematic review.

Tonin F, Steimbach L, Mendes A, Borba H, Pontarolo R, Fernandez-Llimos F PLoS One. 2018; 13(4):e0196644.

PMID: 29709028 PMC: 5927429. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196644.

References

1.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell D, Chaimani A, Schmid C, Cameron C . The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162(11):777-84. DOI: 10.7326/M14-2385. View

2.

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A, Sampson M, Altman D . Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(3):e78. PMC: 1831728. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. View

3.

Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354(9193):1896-900. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5. View

4.

Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman D, Schulz K, Moher D . Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev. 2012; 1:60. PMC: 3564748. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-60. View

5.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Caldwell D, Schmid C, Thorlund K . The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. PLoS One. 2014; 9(3):e92508. PMC: 3966807. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092508. View

6.

Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ioannidis J . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2700. PMC: 2714672. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. View

7.

Lee A . Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 67(2):138-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.014. View

8.

Abdelhamid A, Loke Y, Parekh-Bhurke S, Chen Y, Sutton A, Eastwood A . Use of indirect comparison methods in systematic reviews: a survey of Cochrane review authors. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 3(2):71-9. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.51. View

9.

Hoaglin D, Hawkins N, Jansen J, Scott D, Itzler R, Cappelleri J . Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):429-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011. View

10.

Jansen J, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N . Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):417-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002. View

Use of Network Meta-analysis in Systematic Reviews: a Survey of Authors