Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: a systematic review

Chambers, James D., Naci, Huseyin, Wouters, Olivier J., Pyo, Junhee, Gunjal, Shalak, Kennedy, Ian R., Hoey, Mark G., Winn, Aaron and Neumann, Peter J. (2015) An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: a systematic review. PLOS ONE, 10 (4). ISSN 1932-6203

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (555kB) | Preview

Identification Number: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121715

Abstract

Objective To assess the methodological quality of published network meta-analysis. Design Systematic review. Methods We searched the medical literature for network meta-analyses of pharmaceuticals. We assessed general study characteristics, study transparency and reproducibility, methodological approach, and reporting of findings. We compared studies published in journals with lower impact factors with those published in journals with higher impact factors, studies published prior to January 1st, 2013 with those published after that date, and studies supported financially by industry with those supported by non-profit institutions or that received no support. Results The systematic literature search identified 854 citations. Three hundred and eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. The number of network meta-analyses has grown rapidly, with 48% of studies published since January 2013. The majority of network meta-analyses were supported by a non-profit institution or received no support (68%). We found considerable inconsistencies among reviewed studies. Eighty percent reported search terms, 61% a network diagram, 65% sufficient data to replicate the analysis, and 90% the characteristics of included trials. Seventy percent performed a risk of bias assessment of included trials, 40% an assessment of model fit, and 56% a sensitivity analysis. Among studies with a closed loop, 69% examined the consistency of direct and indirect evidence. Sixty-four percent of studies presented the full matrix of head-to-head treatment comparisons. For Bayesian studies, 41% reported the probability that each treatment was best, 31% reported treatment ranking, and 16% included the model code or referenced publicly-available code. Network meta-analyses published in higher impact factors journals and those that did not receive industry support performed better across the assessment criteria. We found few differences between older and newer studies. Conclusions There is substantial variation in the network meta-analysis literature. Consensus among guidelines is needed improve the methodological quality, transparency, and consistency of study conduct and reporting.

Item Type: Article
Official URL: http://www.plosone.org/
Additional Information: ©2015 Chambers et al.
Divisions: LSE Health
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HA Statistics
R Medicine > RZ Other systems of medicine
Sets: Research centres and groups > LSE Health and Social Care
Research centres and groups > LSE Health
Date Deposited: 13 May 2015 10:08
Last Modified: 20 Sep 2019 02:00
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/61917

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics