Show simple item record

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


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)