The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement.
<h4>Introduction</h4>Some have suggested the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses (a technique used to synthesize information to compare multiple interventions) is sub-optimal. We sought to review information addressing this claim.<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct an over...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2014
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/fd5dd8cc60344f22a3c7beca6129051c |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:fd5dd8cc60344f22a3c7beca6129051c |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:fd5dd8cc60344f22a3c7beca6129051c2021-11-18T08:26:03ZThe quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0092508https://doaj.org/article/fd5dd8cc60344f22a3c7beca6129051c2014-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24671099/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Introduction</h4>Some have suggested the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses (a technique used to synthesize information to compare multiple interventions) is sub-optimal. We sought to review information addressing this claim.<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct an overview of existing evaluations of quality of reporting in network meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparisons, and to compile a list of topics which may require detailed reporting guidance to enhance future reporting quality.<h4>Methods</h4>An electronic search of Medline and the Cochrane Registry of methodologic studies (January 2004-August 2013) was performed by an information specialist. Studies describing findings from quality of reporting assessments were sought. Screening of abstracts and full texts was performed by two team members. Descriptors related to all aspects of reporting a network meta-analysis were summarized.<h4>Results</h4>We included eight reports exploring the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses. From past reviews, authors found several aspects of network meta-analyses were inadequately reported, including primary information about literature searching, study selection, and risk of bias evaluations; statement of the underlying assumptions for network meta-analysis, as well as efforts to verify their validity; details of statistical models used for analyses (including information for both Bayesian and Frequentist approaches); completeness of reporting of findings; and approaches for summarizing probability measures as additional important considerations.<h4>Conclusions</h4>While few studies were identified, several deficiencies in the current reporting of network meta-analyses were observed. These findings reinforce the need to develop reporting guidance for network meta-analyses. Findings from this review will be used to guide next steps in the development of reporting guidance for network meta-analysis in the format of an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) Statement.Brian HuttonGeorgia SalantiAnna ChaimaniDeborah M CaldwellChris SchmidKristian ThorlundEdward MillsFerrán Catalá-LópezLucy TurnerDouglas G AltmanDavid MoherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 9, Iss 3, p e92508 (2014) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
Medicine R Science Q |
| spellingShingle |
Medicine R Science Q Brian Hutton Georgia Salanti Anna Chaimani Deborah M Caldwell Chris Schmid Kristian Thorlund Edward Mills Ferrán Catalá-López Lucy Turner Douglas G Altman David Moher The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. |
| description |
<h4>Introduction</h4>Some have suggested the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses (a technique used to synthesize information to compare multiple interventions) is sub-optimal. We sought to review information addressing this claim.<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct an overview of existing evaluations of quality of reporting in network meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparisons, and to compile a list of topics which may require detailed reporting guidance to enhance future reporting quality.<h4>Methods</h4>An electronic search of Medline and the Cochrane Registry of methodologic studies (January 2004-August 2013) was performed by an information specialist. Studies describing findings from quality of reporting assessments were sought. Screening of abstracts and full texts was performed by two team members. Descriptors related to all aspects of reporting a network meta-analysis were summarized.<h4>Results</h4>We included eight reports exploring the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses. From past reviews, authors found several aspects of network meta-analyses were inadequately reported, including primary information about literature searching, study selection, and risk of bias evaluations; statement of the underlying assumptions for network meta-analysis, as well as efforts to verify their validity; details of statistical models used for analyses (including information for both Bayesian and Frequentist approaches); completeness of reporting of findings; and approaches for summarizing probability measures as additional important considerations.<h4>Conclusions</h4>While few studies were identified, several deficiencies in the current reporting of network meta-analyses were observed. These findings reinforce the need to develop reporting guidance for network meta-analyses. Findings from this review will be used to guide next steps in the development of reporting guidance for network meta-analysis in the format of an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) Statement. |
| format |
article |
| author |
Brian Hutton Georgia Salanti Anna Chaimani Deborah M Caldwell Chris Schmid Kristian Thorlund Edward Mills Ferrán Catalá-López Lucy Turner Douglas G Altman David Moher |
| author_facet |
Brian Hutton Georgia Salanti Anna Chaimani Deborah M Caldwell Chris Schmid Kristian Thorlund Edward Mills Ferrán Catalá-López Lucy Turner Douglas G Altman David Moher |
| author_sort |
Brian Hutton |
| title |
The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. |
| title_short |
The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. |
| title_full |
The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. |
| title_fullStr |
The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. |
| title_full_unstemmed |
The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. |
| title_sort |
quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. |
| publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/fd5dd8cc60344f22a3c7beca6129051c |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT brianhutton thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT georgiasalanti thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT annachaimani thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT deborahmcaldwell thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT chrisschmid thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT kristianthorlund thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT edwardmills thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT ferrancatalalopez thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT lucyturner thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT douglasgaltman thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT davidmoher thequalityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT brianhutton qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT georgiasalanti qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT annachaimani qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT deborahmcaldwell qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT chrisschmid qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT kristianthorlund qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT edwardmills qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT ferrancatalalopez qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT lucyturner qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT douglasgaltman qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement AT davidmoher qualityofreportingmethodsandresultsinnetworkmetaanalysesanoverviewofreviewsandsuggestionsforimprovement |
| _version_ |
1718421839769763840 |