Bruno Kovic1, Michael J Zoratti2, Steven Michalopoulos2, Camila Silvestre3, Kristian Thorlund4, Lehana Thabane5. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Health Sciences Centre Room 2C1, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. Electronic address: kovicb@mcmaster.ca. 2. Redwood Outcomes, 1714 Stockton Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94133, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Health Sciences Centre Room 2C1, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. 5. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, 3rd Floor, Martha Wing, Room H-325, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4A6, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the current state of reporting and handling of effect modification in network meta-analyses (NMAs) and perform exploratory analyses to identify variables that are potentially associated with incomplete reporting of effect modifiers in NMAs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a meta-epidemiological survey using a systematic review of NMAs published in 2013 and identified through MEDLINE and Embase databases. RESULTS: The review identified 77 NMAs. The most common type of effect modifiers identified and explored were patient characteristics (50.7% or 39/77), and the most common adjustment method used was sensitivity analysis (51.7% or 30/58). Over 45% (35/77) of studies did not describe a plan, nearly 40% (30/77) did not report the results of analyses, and approximately 47% (36/77) of studies had incomplete reporting. Exploratory univariate regression analyses yielded a statistically significant association for the variables of journal impact factor, ratio of randomized controlled trials to number of comparisons, and total number of randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSION: Current reporting practices are largely deficient, given that almost half of identified published NMAs do not explore or report effect modification. Journal impact factor and amount of available information in a network were associated with completeness of reporting.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the current state of reporting and handling of effect modification in network meta-analyses (NMAs) and perform exploratory analyses to identify variables that are potentially associated with incomplete reporting of effect modifiers in NMAs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a meta-epidemiological survey using a systematic review of NMAs published in 2013 and identified through MEDLINE and Embase databases. RESULTS: The review identified 77 NMAs. The most common type of effect modifiers identified and explored were patient characteristics (50.7% or 39/77), and the most common adjustment method used was sensitivity analysis (51.7% or 30/58). Over 45% (35/77) of studies did not describe a plan, nearly 40% (30/77) did not report the results of analyses, and approximately 47% (36/77) of studies had incomplete reporting. Exploratory univariate regression analyses yielded a statistically significant association for the variables of journal impact factor, ratio of randomized controlled trials to number of comparisons, and total number of randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSION: Current reporting practices are largely deficient, given that almost half of identified published NMAs do not explore or report effect modification. Journal impact factor and amount of available information in a network were associated with completeness of reporting.
Authors: Steve Kanters; Mohammad Ehsanul Karim; Kristian Thorlund; Aslam Anis; Nick Bansback Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 4.615