Mapping the characteristics of network metaanalyses on drug therapy: A systematic review

Tonin, FS; Steimbach, LM; Mendes, AM; Borba, HH; Pontarolo, R; Fernandez-Llimos, F

Mapping the characteristics of network metaanalyses on drug therapy: A systematic review

Tonin, FS Steimbach, LM Mendes, AM Borba, HH Pontarolo, R Fernandez-Llimos, F

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: PLoS ONE, 2018, 13 (4)
Issue Date:: 2018-04-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (2.96 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Tonin, FS	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Steimbach, LM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Mendes, AM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Borba, HH	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Pontarolo, R	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Fernandez-Llimos, F https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8529-9595	en_US
dc.date.available	2018-04-17	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-04-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	PLoS ONE, 2018, 13 (4)	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131546
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 Tonin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a new tool developed to overcome some limitations of pairwise meta-analyses. NMAs provide evidence on more than two comparators simultaneously. This study aimed to map the characteristics of the published NMAs on drug therapy comparisons. Methods A systematic review of NMAs comparing pharmacological interventions was performed. Searches in Medline (PubMed) and Scopus along with manual searches were conducted. The main characteristics of NMAs were systematically collected: publication metadata, criteria for drug inclusion, statistical methods used, and elements reported. A methodological quality score with 25 key elements was created and applied to the included NMAs. To identify potential trends, the median of the publication year distribution was used as a cut-off. Results The study identified 365 NMAs published from 2003 to 2016 in more than 30 countries. Randomised controlled trials were the primary source of data, with only 5% including observational studies, and 230 NMAs used a placebo as a comparator. Less than 15% of NMAs were registered in PROSPERO or a similar system. One third of studies followed PRISMA and less than 9% Cochrane recommendations. Around 30% presented full-search strategies of the systematic review, and 146 NMAs stated the selection criteria for drug inclusion. Over 75% of NMAs presented network plots, but only half described their geometry. Statistical parameters (model fit, inconsistency, convergence) were properly reported by one third of NMAs. Although 216 studies exhibited supplemental material, no data set of primary studies was available. The methodological quality score (mean 139; SD 38) presented a slightly positive trend over the years. Conclusion The map of the published NMAs emphasises the potential of this tool to gather evidence in healthcare, but it also identified some weaknesses, especially in the report, which limits its transparency and reproducibility.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	PLoS ONE	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1371/journal.pone.0196644	en_US
dc.subject.classification	General Science & Technology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Pharmaceutical Preparations	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Drug Therapy	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Bayes Theorem	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Decision Making	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Algorithms	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Research Design	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Internet	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Software	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	MEDLINE	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Meta-Analysis as Topic	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Network Meta-Analysis	en_US
dc.title	Mapping the characteristics of network metaanalyses on drug therapy: A systematic review	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	13	en_US
utslib.for	0104 Statistics	en_US
utslib.for	1115 Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Graduate School of Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	13	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 Tonin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a new tool developed to overcome some limitations of pairwise meta-analyses. NMAs provide evidence on more than two comparators simultaneously. This study aimed to map the characteristics of the published NMAs on drug therapy comparisons. Methods A systematic review of NMAs comparing pharmacological interventions was performed. Searches in Medline (PubMed) and Scopus along with manual searches were conducted. The main characteristics of NMAs were systematically collected: publication metadata, criteria for drug inclusion, statistical methods used, and elements reported. A methodological quality score with 25 key elements was created and applied to the included NMAs. To identify potential trends, the median of the publication year distribution was used as a cut-off. Results The study identified 365 NMAs published from 2003 to 2016 in more than 30 countries. Randomised controlled trials were the primary source of data, with only 5% including observational studies, and 230 NMAs used a placebo as a comparator. Less than 15% of NMAs were registered in PROSPERO or a similar system. One third of studies followed PRISMA and less than 9% Cochrane recommendations. Around 30% presented full-search strategies of the systematic review, and 146 NMAs stated the selection criteria for drug inclusion. Over 75% of NMAs presented network plots, but only half described their geometry. Statistical parameters (model fit, inconsistency, convergence) were properly reported by one third of NMAs. Although 216 studies exhibited supplemental material, no data set of primary studies was available. The methodological quality score (mean 139; SD 38) presented a slightly positive trend over the years. Conclusion The map of the published NMAs emphasises the potential of this tool to gather evidence in healthcare, but it also identified some weaknesses, especially in the report, which limits its transparency and reproducibility.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131546