The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: An overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  Hutton, Brian ^a,b   Salanti, Georgia ^c   Chaimani, Anna ^c   Caldwell, Deborah M ^d   Schmid, Chris ^e   Thorlund, Kristian ^f,g   Mills, Edward ^b,f   Catalá López, Ferrán ^h   Turner, Lucy ^a   Altman, Douglas G ⁱ   Moher, David ^a,b  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^e BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^h Department of Medicines for Veterinary Use   (Spain)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; REGISTER; SCREENING; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDITY; DOCUMENTATION; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH REPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84899949837     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092508     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, PRISMA group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264-269.
2. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6.
3. Higgins J, Whitehead A (1996) Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 15: 2733-2749. (Pubitemid 27011054)
4. Bucher H, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Walter S (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50: 683-691. (Pubitemid 27341818)
5. Lumley T (2002) Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine 21: 2313-2324.
6. Lu G, Ades A (2004) Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine 23: 3105-3124. (Pubitemid 39334902)
7. Salanti G (2012) Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Research Synthesis Methods 3: 80-97.
8. Lee A (2013) Review of mixed treatment comaprisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Published online first.
9. Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki A, Vasiliadis H, Schmid C, et al. (2014) Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PLoS One DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086754.
10. Hoaglin D, Hawkins N, Jansen J, Scott DA, Itzler R, et al (2011) 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 14: 429-437.
11. Jansen J, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler Robbin, Barrett A, et al (2011) 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 14: 417-428.
12. Ades AE, Caldwell D, Reken S, Welton N, Sutton A, et al. (2012) NICE DSU Technical Support Document 7: Evidence synthesis of treatment efficacy in decision making: a reviewer's checklist. Available: http://www nicedsu.org.uk.
13. Salanti G, Ades A, Ioannidis J (2011) Graphical methods and numeric summaries for presenting results from multiple treatments meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 64: 163-171.
14. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, et al. (2009) An evidence based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 944-952.
15. Song F, Loke Y, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, et al. (2009) Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 338.
16. Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, Tudur-Smith C (2010) Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One 5.
17. Coleman C, Phung O, Capelleri J, Baker W, Kluger J, et al. (2012) Used of Mixed Treatment Comparisons in Systematic Reviews. Methods Research report Prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital evidence-based practice center.
18. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P (2013) Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ 347: f3675.
19. Tan S, Bujkiewicz S, Sutton A, Dequen P, Cooper N (2013) Presentational approaches used in the UK for reporting evidence synthesis using indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. J Health Serv Res Pol 18: 224-232.
20. Sobieraj D, Cappelleri J, Baker W, Phung O, White C, et al. (2013) Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review. BMJ Open 3.
21. Bending M, Hutton J, McGrath C (2011) Demonstrating clinical effectiveness using indirect and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: a review of manufacturers' single technology appraisal submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Value Health 14: A21.
22. Buckley F, Modha R, Muston D, Misra A, Williams R (2009) Use of indirect comparison in HTA submissions. Value Health Conference: ISPOR 14th Annual International Meeting Orlando, FL United States. Conference Start: 20090516 Conference End: 20090520. Conference Publication: A93-A94.
23. Brooks-Renney C, Costello S, Kusel J, Timm B (2011) The use of mixed treatment comparisons in NICE technology appraisals. Inernational Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Meeting Abstract (Baltimore, 2011).
24. Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, Ades A (2011) NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Available from http://www nicedsu.org.uk.
25. Dias S, Sutton A, Welton N, Ades A (2011) NICE DSU Technical Support Document 3: Heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and biasadjustment. Available from http://www nicedsu.org.uk.
26. Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, Caldwell D, Lu G, Ades A (2011) NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4: Inconsistency in Networks of Evidence Based on Randomised Controlled Trials. Available: http://www nicedsu.org.uk.
27. Caldwell D, Ades A, Higgins J (2005) Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 331: 897-900. (Pubitemid 41502718)
28. Ioannidis J (2009) Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatment meta-analyses. CMAJ 181: 488-493.
29. Mills E, Ioannidis J, Thorlund K, Schunemann H, Puhan M, et al. (2012) How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 308: 1246-1253.
30. Mills E, Bansback N, Ghement I, Thorlund K, Kelly S, et al. (2011) Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity. Clinical Epidemiology 3: 193-202.
31. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K (2008) Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 26: 753-767.
32. Salanti G, Higgins J, Ades A, Ioannidis J (2008) Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 17: 279-301.
33. Li T, Puhan M, Vedula S, Singh S, Dickersin K, et al (2011) Network meta-analysis: highly attractive, but more methodological research is needed. BMC Medicine 9.
34. Greco T, Landoni G, Biondai-Zoccai G, D'Ascenzo F, Zangrillo A (2013) A bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: how to do it. Stat Methods Med Res Epub ahead of print.
35. Ohlssen D, Price K, Amy Xia H, Hong H, Kerman J, et al (2013) Guidance on the implementation and reporting of a drug safety Bayesian network meta-analysis. Pharm Stat Epub ahead of print.
36. Wells G, Sultan S, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D (2009) Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
37. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (2013) Comparators and Comparisons: Direct and Indirect Comparisons. Available: https://www.cc-arcc.ca/ common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=282143.
38. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Working Group (2008) Report of the Indirect Comparisons Working Group to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: assessing indirect comparisons.
39. Haute Autorite de Sante (2009) Indirect Comparisons: Methods and Validity.