Epidemiology Characteristics, Methodological Assessment and Reporting of Statistical Analysis of Network Meta-Analyses in the Field of Cancer

Scientific Reports

Volumn 6, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Ge, Long ^a,b   Tian, Jin Hui ^a,b   Li, Xiu Xia ^a,b   Song, Fujian ^c   Li, Lun ^d   Zhang, Jun ^e   Li, Ge ^f   Pei, Gai Qin ^a   Qiu, Xia ^a   Yang, Ke Hu ^a,b  

^a LANZHOU UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^d CENTRAL SOUTH UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e GANSU UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE MEDICINE   (China)

^f TIANJIN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CHECKLIST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; META ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEOPLASM; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; RESEARCH; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; RESEARCH REPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84995584170     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep37208     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. World Health Organization. Cancer. Available: http://www. who. int/topics/cancer/en/(2015).
2. Li, J. L. et al. Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in "evidence-based" Chinese journals. Syst Rev. 3, 58 (2014).
3. Kiefer, C., Sturtz, S., Bender, R. Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-Analyses. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 112, 803-808 (2015).
4. Gresham, G. K., Wells, G. A., Gill, S., Cameron, C., Jonker, D. J. Chemotherapy regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 14, 471 (2014).
5. Cipriani, A., Higgins, J. P., Geddes, J. R., Salanti, G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 159, 130e7 (2013).
6. Salanti, G., Higgins, J. P. T., Ades, A. E., Ioannidis, J. P. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 17, 279-301 (2008).
7. Li, L. et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol. 67, 1001-1007 (2014).
8. Lee, A. W. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemio. 67, 138-143 (2014).
9. Jansen, J. P., Schmid, C. H., Salanti, G. Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. J Clin Epidemiol. 65, 798e807 (2012).
10. Lumley, T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 21, 2313-2324 (2002).
11. 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. Res Synth Methods. 3, 80-97 (2012).
12. Bafeta, A., Trinquart, L., Seror, R., Ravaud, P. Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ. 347, f3675 (2013).
13. Song, F. et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 338, b1147 (2009).
14. Donegan, S., Williamson, P., Gamble, C., Tudur-Smith, C. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One. 5, e11054 (2010).
15. Chambers, J. D. et al. An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: a systematic review. PLoS One. 10, e0121715 (2015).
16. Yang, Z. X., Li, X., Wang, L., Li, Y. P., Tang, X. L. Background Research for the Decision Support Tool of Evidence-Based Evaluation for Essential Medicines: 1. Overview of Quality Assessment Tools for Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Chin J Evid-based Med. 15, 723-729 (2015).
17. Shea, B. J. et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 7, 10 (2007).
18. Shea, B. J. et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 62, 1013-1020 (2009).
19. Shea, B. J. et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2, e1350 (2007).
20. Kyrgiou, M., Salanti, G., Pavlidis, N., Paraskevaidis, E., Ioannidis, J. P. Survival benefits with diverse chemotherapy regimens for ovarian cancer: meta-analysis of multiple treatments. J Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 1655-1663 (2006).
21. Bucher, H. C., Guyatt, G. H., Griffith, L. E., Walter, S. D. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 50, 683-691 (1997).
22. Tian, J. H., Ge, L., Li, L. The PRISMA Extension Statement. Ann Intern Med. 163, 566 (2015).
23. Cohen, J. F., Korevaar, D. A., Wang, J., Spijker, R., Bossuyt, P. M. Should we search Chinese biomedical databases when performing systematic reviews? Syst Rev. 4, 23 (2015).
24. Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Marinho, V., Salanti, G., Higgins, J. P., Ades, A. E. Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc. 173, 613-629 (2010).
25. Donegan, S., Williamson, P., D'Alessandro, U., Tudur Smith, C. Assessing key assumptions of network meta-analysis: a review of methods. Res Synth Methods. 4, 291-323 (2013).
26. Salanti, G., Del Giovane, C., Chaimani, A., Caldwell, D. M., Higgins, J. P. T. Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 9, e99682 (2014).
27. Thomson Reuters. 2014 Journal Citation Reports. Available: http://thomsonreuters. com/journalcitation-reports/(2014).
28. Hutton, B. et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 162, 777-784 (2015).
29. Ouwens, M. J., Philips, Z., Jansen, J. P. Network meta-analysis of parametric survival curves. Res Synth Methods. 1, 258-271 (2010).
30. Song, F. J., Harvey, I., Lilford, R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 61, 455-463 (2008).
31. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., van der Linde, A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Statist Soc B. 64, 57 (2002).
32. Brooks, S. P., Gelman, A. General Methods for Monitoring Convergence of Iterative Simulations. J Comput Graph Stat. 7(4), 434-455 (1998).
33. Higgins, J., Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5. 0. 0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: www. cochrane-handbook. org (2008).
34. Cooper, N., Sutton, A., Morris, D., Ades, A., Welton, N. Addressing between study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med. 28, 1861-1881 (2009).
35. Glenny, A. M. et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess. 9, 1-134 (2005).
36. Veroniki, A. A., Vasiliadis, H. S., Higgins, J. P., Salanti, G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 42, 332-345 (2013).
37. Wu, H. Y. et al. Comparative effectiveness of renin-angiotensin system blockers and other antihypertensive drugs in patients with diabetes: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. BMJ. 347, f6008 (2013).
38. Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A. C., Sampson, M., Altman, D. G. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 4, e78 (2007).
39. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. College Station: StataCorp LP (2013).