Arthur James1, Amélie Yavchitz2, Philippe Ravaud3, Isabelle Boutron4. 1. Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France. 2. Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France; Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, Paris 75015, France. Electronic address: amelie.yavchitz@aphp.fr. 3. Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris, France; Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W 168th St, New York, NY 10032, USA. 4. Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify methods to support the node-making process in network meta-analyses (NMAs) of nonpharmacological treatments. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We proceeded in two stages. First, we conducted a literature review of guidelines and methodological articles about NMAs to identify methods proposed to lump interventions into nodes. Second, we conducted a systematic review of NMAs of nonpharmacological treatments to extract methods used by authors to support their node-making process. MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched to identify articles assessing NMA guidelines or methodology intended for NMA authors. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched to identify reports of NMAs including at least one nonpharmacological treatment. Both searches involved articles available from database inception to March 2016. From the methodological review, we identified and extracted methods proposed to lump interventions into nodes. From the systematic review, the reporting of the network was assessed as long as the method described supported the node-making process. RESULTS: Among the 116 articles retrieved in the literature review, 12 (10%) discussed the concept of lumping or splitting interventions in NMAs. No consensual method was identified during the methodological review, and expert consensus was the only method proposed to support the node-making process. Among 5187 references for the systematic review, we included 110 reports of NMAs published between 2007 and 2016. The nodes were described in the introduction section of 88 reports (80%), which suggested that the node content might have been a priori decided before the systematic review. Nine reports (8.1%) described a specific process or justification to build nodes for the network. Two methods were identified: (1) fit a previously published classification and (2) expert consensus. CONCLUSION: Despite the importance of NMA in the delivery of evidence when several interventions are available for a single indication, recommendations on the reporting of the node-making process in NMAs are lacking, and reporting of the node-making process in NMAs seems insufficient.
OBJECTIVE: To identify methods to support the node-making process in network meta-analyses (NMAs) of nonpharmacological treatments. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We proceeded in two stages. First, we conducted a literature review of guidelines and methodological articles about NMAs to identify methods proposed to lump interventions into nodes. Second, we conducted a systematic review of NMAs of nonpharmacological treatments to extract methods used by authors to support their node-making process. MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched to identify articles assessing NMA guidelines or methodology intended for NMA authors. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched to identify reports of NMAs including at least one nonpharmacological treatment. Both searches involved articles available from database inception to March 2016. From the methodological review, we identified and extracted methods proposed to lump interventions into nodes. From the systematic review, the reporting of the network was assessed as long as the method described supported the node-making process. RESULTS: Among the 116 articles retrieved in the literature review, 12 (10%) discussed the concept of lumping or splitting interventions in NMAs. No consensual method was identified during the methodological review, and expert consensus was the only method proposed to support the node-making process. Among 5187 references for the systematic review, we included 110 reports of NMAs published between 2007 and 2016. The nodes were described in the introduction section of 88 reports (80%), which suggested that the node content might have been a priori decided before the systematic review. Nine reports (8.1%) described a specific process or justification to build nodes for the network. Two methods were identified: (1) fit a previously published classification and (2) expert consensus. CONCLUSION: Despite the importance of NMA in the delivery of evidence when several interventions are available for a single indication, recommendations on the reporting of the node-making process in NMAs are lacking, and reporting of the node-making process in NMAs seems insufficient.
Authors: Deborah M Caldwell; Sarah R Davies; Sarah E Hetrick; Jennifer C Palmer; Paola Caro; José A López-López; David Gunnell; Judi Kidger; James Thomas; Clare French; Emily Stockings; Rona Campbell; Nicky J Welton Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Paolo Pillastrini; Greta Castellini; Alessandro Chiarotto; Francesco Fasciani; Francesco Marzioni; Carla Vanti; Lucia Bertozzi; Silvia Gianola Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Mateus B Souza; Rodrigo O Mascarenhas; Laisa B Maia; Letícia S Fonseca; Hytalo J Silva; Rutger M J de Zoete; James H McAuley; Nicholas Henschke; Vinicius C Oliveira Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 3.752