Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews?

BMC Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Vandvik, Per Olav ^a,b   Brignardello Petersen, Romina ^c,d   Guyatt, Gordon H ^c  

^a INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Clinical practice guidelines; Evidence based medicine; GRADE; Knowledge translation; Network meta analysis; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LIVING CUMULATIVE NETWORK META ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NETWORK META ANALYSIS; NOTE; PATIENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WRITING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85007493669     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0596-4     Document Type: Note

References (25)

1. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, American Medical Association; 2015.
2. Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726-35.
3. Treweek S, Oxman AD, Alderson P, et al. Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement Sci. 2013;8:6.
4. Laine C, Taichman DB, Mulrow C. Trustworthy clinical guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(11):774-5.
5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995-8.
6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049-51.
7. Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011 http://www.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 5 Mar 2016.
8. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multipletreatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Syn Meth. 2012;3:80-97.
9. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105-24.
10. Efthimiou O, Debray TP, van Valkenhoef G, et al. GetReal in network metaanalysis: a review of the methodology. Res Syn Meth. 2016. doi:10.1002/jrsm.
11. Crequit P, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P. Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):8.
12. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-4.
13. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11(2), e1001603.
14. Vandvik PO, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Creating clinical practice guidelines we can trust, use, and share: a new era is imminent. Chest. 2013; 144(2):381-9.
15. MAGIC authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp) for improving patient care through guidelines, evidence summaries and decision aids that we can all trust, use and share. http://www.magicapp.org. Accessed 5 Mar 2016.
16. Epistemonikos. A Free, Relational, Collaborative, Multilingual Database of Health Evidence. http://www.epistemonikos.org Accessed 5 Mar 2016.
17. Agoritsas T, Heen AF, Brandt L, et al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ. 2015;350:g7624.
18. Kristiansen A, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Development of a novel, multilayered presentation format for clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2015; 147(3):754-63.
19. Elwyn G, Quinlan C, Mulley A, Agoritsas T, Vandvik PO, Guyatt G. Trustworthy guidelines-excellent; customized care tools-even better. BMC Med. 2015; 13(1):199.
20. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-94.
21. Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5630.
22. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JP. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(7), e99682.
23. GRADE working group. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org. Accessed 5 Mar 2016.
24. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6.
25. iSoF. The key information you need to understand the benefits and harms of treatments. http://isof.epistemonikos.org. Accessed 5 Mar 2016.