Anna Chaimani1, Deborah M Caldwell2, Tianjing Li3, Julian P T Higgins2, Georgia Salanti4. 1. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, University Campus, Ioannina 45110, Greece. Electronic address: anna.chaimani@parisdescartes.fr. 2. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, E6011, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 4. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, University Campus, Ioannina 45110, Greece; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, Bern 3012, Switzerland; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Gesellschaftsstrasse 49, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The number of systematic reviews that aim to compare multiple interventions using network meta-analysis is increasing. In this study, we highlight aspects of a standard systematic review protocol that may need modification when multiple interventions are to be compared. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We take the protocol format suggested by Cochrane for a standard systematic review as our reference and compare the considerations for a pairwise review with those required for a valid comparison of multiple interventions. We suggest new sections for protocols of systematic reviews including network meta-analyses with a focus on how to evaluate their assumptions. We provide example text from published protocols to exemplify the considerations. CONCLUSION: Standard systematic review protocols for pairwise meta-analyses need extensions to accommodate the increased complexity of network meta-analysis. Our suggested modifications are widely applicable to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews involving network meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVES: The number of systematic reviews that aim to compare multiple interventions using network meta-analysis is increasing. In this study, we highlight aspects of a standard systematic review protocol that may need modification when multiple interventions are to be compared. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We take the protocol format suggested by Cochrane for a standard systematic review as our reference and compare the considerations for a pairwise review with those required for a valid comparison of multiple interventions. We suggest new sections for protocols of systematic reviews including network meta-analyses with a focus on how to evaluate their assumptions. We provide example text from published protocols to exemplify the considerations. CONCLUSION: Standard systematic review protocols for pairwise meta-analyses need extensions to accommodate the increased complexity of network meta-analysis. Our suggested modifications are widely applicable to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews involving network meta-analyses.
Authors: Nicholas Nyaaba; Nana Efua Andoh; Gordon Amoh; Dominic Selorm Yao Amuzu; Mary Ansong; José M Ordóñez-Mena; Jennifer Hirst Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Daniel M Fountain; Andrew Bryant; Damiano Giuseppe Barone; Mueez Waqar; Michael G Hart; Helen Bulbeck; Ashleigh Kernohan; Colin Watts; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Vanessa Piechotta; Tina Jakob; Peter Langer; Ina Monsef; Christof Scheid; Lise J Estcourt; Sunday Ocheni; Sebastian Theurich; Kathrin Kuhr; Benjamin Scheckel; Anne Adams; Nicole Skoetz Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-25