Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorLøvsletten, Per Olav
dc.contributor.authorWang, Xiaoqin
dc.contributor.authorPitre, Tyler
dc.contributor.authorØdegaard, Marte
dc.contributor.authorVeroniki, Areti Angeliki
dc.contributor.authorLunny, Carole
dc.contributor.authorTricco, Andrea C.
dc.contributor.authorAgoritsas, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorVandvik, Per Olav
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-13T13:05:54Z
dc.date.available2024-11-13T13:05:54Z
dc.date.issued2024-06-26
dc.description.abstractObjectives - To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries – here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) – and (b) NMA results in general.<p> <p>Study Design and Setting - We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions.<p> <p>Results - The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with 3 (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and 6 (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%).<p> <p>Conclusion - Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms; those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice.en_US
dc.identifier.citationLøvsletten, Wang, Pitre, Ødegaard, Veroniki, Lunny, Tricco, Agoritsas, Vandvik. A systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020-2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summaries. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2024
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2315596
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111445
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356
dc.identifier.issn1878-5921
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/35694
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
dc.relation.projectIDHelse Sør-Øst RHF: 2017015
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleA systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020-2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summariesen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Med mindre det står noe annet, er denne innførselens lisens beskrevet som Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)