dc.contributor.author | Løvsletten, Per Olav | |
dc.contributor.author | Wang, Xiaoqin | |
dc.contributor.author | Pitre, Tyler | |
dc.contributor.author | Ødegaard, Marte | |
dc.contributor.author | Veroniki, Areti Angeliki | |
dc.contributor.author | Lunny, Carole | |
dc.contributor.author | Tricco, Andrea C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Agoritsas, Thomas | |
dc.contributor.author | Vandvik, Per Olav | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-11-13T13:05:54Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-11-13T13:05:54Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2024-06-26 | |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives - 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.citation | Løvsletten, 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.cristinID | FRIDAID 2315596 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111445 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0895-4356 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1878-5921 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/35694 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | |
dc.relation.projectID | Helse Sør-Øst RHF: 2017015 | |
dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2024 The Author(s) | en_US |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) | en_US |
dc.title | A systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020-2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summaries | en_US |
dc.type.version | publishedVersion | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.type | Tidsskriftartikkel | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |