Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Mbuagbaw, L ^a,b,c   Rochwerg, B ^a   Jaeschke, R ^a   Heels Andsell, D ^a   Alhazzani, W ^a   Thabane, L ^a,b,d,e   Guyatt, Gordon H ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c YAOUNDÉ CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Cameroon)

^d CENTRE FOR EVALUATION OF MEDICINES   (Canada)

^e HAMILTON HEALTH SCIENCES   (Canada)

Author keywords

Advantages; Limitations; Network meta analysis; Ranking; SUCRA

Indexed keywords

ALBUMIN; GELATIN; STARCH;

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COGNITION; FLUID RESUSCITATION; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SCIENTIST; SEPSIS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SEPSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85018460918     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0473-z     Document Type: Note

References (13)

1. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96:118-21.
2. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). BMJ. 1997;315:672-5.
3. Cipriani A, Barbui C, Rizzo C, Salanti G. What is a multiple treatments meta-analysis? Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21:151-3.
4. Miller FG, Brody H. What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical Am J Bioeth. 2002;2:3-9.
5. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP. Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f2914.
6. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654.
7. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g1741.
8. Sullivan SM, Coyle D, Wells G. What guidance are researchers given on how to present network meta-analyses to end-users such as policymakers and clinicians? A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e113277.
9. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163-71.
10. Tan SH, Cooper NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Sutton AJ. Novel presentational approaches were developed for reporting network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:672-80.
11. Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, Kessels AG, Guyatt GH. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5630.
12. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N. 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;14(4):417-28.
13. Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Sindi A, Heels-Ansdell D, Thabane L, Fox-Robichaud A, Mbuagbaw L, Szczeklik W, Alshamsi F, Altayyar S, et al. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:347-55.