Erratum: An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: A systematic review (PLoS ONE (2015) 10:4 (e0121715) Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121715);An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: A systematic review

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2015, Pages

  Chambers, James D ^a   Naci, Huseyin ^b   Wouters, Olivier J ^b   Pyo, Junhee ^c   Gunjal, Shalak ^d   Kennedy, Ian R ^e   Hoey, Mark G ^f   Winn, Aaron ^g   Neumann, Peter J ^a  

^a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d PRECISION HEALTH ECONOMICS   (United States)

^e ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^g IL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DATA PROCESSING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION; PHARMACEUTICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROBABILITY; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; STANDARDS; STATISTICS;

JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84928812833     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131953     Document Type: Erratum

References (34)

1. Ioannidis JP. Indirect comparisons: the mesh and mess of clinical trials. Lancet. 2006 Oct 28; 368(9546):1470-2. PMID: 17071265
2. Piccini JP, Kong DF. Mixed treatment comparisons for atrial fibrillation: evidence network or bewildering entanglement? Europace. 2011 Mar; 13(3):295-6. doi: 10.1093/europace/eur029 PMID: 21345924
3. Edwards SJ, Clarke MJ, Wordsworth S, Borrill J. Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Int J Clin Pract. 2009 Jun; 63(6):841-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02072.x PMID: 19490195
4. Salanti G. 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 2012; 3:80-97.
5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [updated 2013 April 4; cited 2014 Dec 11]. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf
6. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. [Internet]. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis. [updated 2009 March; cited 2014 Dec 11] Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/health-technology-assessment/publication/884
7. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee [Internet]. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.4) [updated 2013 June; cited 2014 Dec 11] Available: http://www.pbac.pbs.gov.au/content/information/printable-files/pbacg-book.pdf
8. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011; cited 2014 Dec 11]. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
9. The Cochrane Collaboration. [Internet] Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group. [updated 2013 Dec 18; cited 2014 Dec 11] Available: http://cmimg.cochrane.org/
10. Coleman CI, Phung OJ, Cappelleri JC, Baker WL, Kluger J, White CM, et al. Use of Mixed Treatment Comparisons in Systematic Reviews. Methods Research Report. (Prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No.290-2007-10067-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC119-EF. [updated 2012 Aug; cited 2014 Dec 11] Available: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
11. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ. 2013 Jul 1; 347:f3675. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3675 PMID: 23818558
12. Sobieraj DM, Cappelleri JC, Baker WL, Phung OJ, White CM, Coleman CI. Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013 Jul 21; 3(7). pii: e003111. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003111 PMID: 23878173
13. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009 Apr 3; 338:b1147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1147 PMID: 19346285
14. Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, Tudur-Smith C. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One. 2010 Nov 10; 5(11):e11054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011054 PMID: 21085712
15. Thomson Reuters. 2013 Journal Citation Reports. Available: http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/
16. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, et al. 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 Jun; 14(4):429-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011 PMID: 21669367
17. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, et al. 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 Jun; 14(4):417-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002 PMID: 21669366
18. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18; 343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928 PMID: 22008217
19. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb; 17(1):1-12. PMID: 8721797
20. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Evidence Synthesis Technical Support Documents Series [updated 2014 April; cited 2014 Dec 11]. Available: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/evidence-synthesis-tsd-series%282391675%29.htm.
21. Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Sep 18; 157(6):429-38. PMID: 22945832
22. Dias S, Welton NJ, Marinho VCC, Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE. Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc. 2010; 173:613-29.
23. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008 Mar 15; 336(7644):601-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD PMID: 18316340
24. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2008; 17: 279-301. PMID: 17925316
25. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004 Oct 30; 23(20):3105-24. PMID: 15449338
26. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med. 2009 Jun 30; 28(14):1861-81. doi: 10.1002/sim.3594 PMID: 19399825
27. Ades AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med. 2003 Oct 15; 22(19):2995-3016. PMID: 12973783
28. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010 Mar 30; 29(7-8):932-44.
29. Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Jul 16; 159(2):130-7 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008 PMID: 23856683
30. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ. 2006 Oct 14; 333(7572):782. PMID: 17028106
31. Jorgensen AW, Maric KL, Tendal B, Faurschou A, Gotzsche PC. Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Sep 9; 8:60. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-60 PMID: 18782430
32. Hutton B, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Schmid C, Thorlund K, et al. The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26; 9(3):e92508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092508 PMID: 24671099
33. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21; 339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 PMID: 19622552
34. Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014 Mar; 17(2):157-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004 PMID: 24636374