Searching for evidence

Network Meta-Analysis: Evidence Synthesis with Mixed Treatment Comparison

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 63-76

  Golder, Su ^a   Wright, Kath ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence; network meta analysis; search; search strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957689136     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (15)

1. Li T., Puhan M. A., Vedula S. S., Singh S., Dickersin K.; Ad Hoc Network Meta-analysis Methods Meeting Working Group. Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med., 2011; 9: 79.
2. Hawkins N., Scott D. A., Woods B. How far do you go? Efficient searching for indirect evidence. Med. Decis. Making, 2009; 29: 273-81.
3. Coleman C. I., Phung O. J., Cappelleri J. C., Baker W. L., Kluger J., White C. M., Sobieraj D. M. Use of Mixed Treatment Comparisons in Systematic Reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2012.
4. Mills, E. J. Kanters, S. Thorlund, K. Chaimani, A. Areti-Angeliki Veroniki, A. Ioannidis, J. P. A. The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey. BMJ, 2013; 347: f5195.
5. Hoaglin D. C., Hawkins N., Jansen J. P., Scott D. A., Itzler R., Cappelleri J. C., Boersma C., Thompson D., Larholt K. M., Diaz M., Barrett A. 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: 429-37.
6. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944-52.
7. Crumley, E. T., Wiebe, N., Cramer, K., Klassen, T. P. and Hartling, L. Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review. BMC Medl. Res. Methodol., 2005; 5: 24.
8. Golder S., Loke Y. K. The contribution of different information sources for adverse effects data. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care, 2012; 28: 133-7.
9. Golder S., Mason A., Spilsbury K. Systematic searches for the effectiveness of respite care. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2008; 96: 147-52.
10. Golder S. Optimising the retrieval of information on adverse drug effects. Health Info. Libr. J., 2013; 30: 327-31.
11. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.
12. Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gotzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P., Clarke M., Devereaux P. J., Kleijnen J., Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009; 339: b2700.
13. 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; 347: f3675.
14. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008.
15. Shea B. J., Grimshaw J. M., Wells G. A., Boers M., Andersson N., Hamel C., Porter A. C., Tugwell P., Moher D., Bouter L. M. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 2007; 7: 10.