Literature DB >> 35821493

Network meta-analysis in psychology and educational sciences: A systematic review of their characteristics.

Belén Fernández-Castilla1,2,3, Wim Van den Noortgate4,5.   

Abstract

Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows the combination of evidence on the effectiveness of several interventions. NMA has mainly been applied in the medical science field, whereas in the domain of psychology and educational sciences its use is less frequent. Consequently, systematic reviews that describe the characteristics of published NMAs are limited to the field of medicine, and nothing is known about the characteristics of NMAs published in the psychology and educational sciences field. However, this information is still relevant for the design of future simulation studies and for detecting good and bad research practices. Thus, this study describes the features of the meta-analytic datasets of NMAs published in the field of psychology and educational sciences, as well as their methodological characteristics, and compares them to those observed in the medical domain. Results show that the number of studies included is larger in NMAs from psychology and educational sciences, the most commonly used effect size is the standardized mean difference (unlike the odds ratio in medicine), the sample size is smaller, more intervention groups are included, and inconsistent effects are observed more often. These results can be used in future simulation studies to generate realistic datasets. Finally, we warn about the poor quality of reporting of some technical aspects of the NMA, such as the statistical model used.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Network meta-analysis; Psychology and educational sciences; Systematic review

Year:  2022        PMID: 35821493     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01905-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  36 in total

1.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  H C Bucher; G H Guyatt; L E Griffith; S D Walter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrea Cipriani; Julian P T Higgins; John R Geddes; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions.

Authors:  Anna Chaimani; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 5.273

Review 4.  Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction.

Authors:  Ferrán Catalá-López; Aurelio Tobías; Chris Cameron; David Moher; Brian Hutton
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 2.631

5.  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Dias; N J Welton; D M Caldwell; A E Ades
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model.

Authors:  Suhail A R Doi; Jan J Barendregt; Shahjahan Khan; Lukman Thalib; Gail M Williams
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 7.  Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Anna Chaimani; Haris S Vasiliadis; Nikolaos Pandis; Christopher H Schmid; Nicky J Welton; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  Network meta-analysis including treatment by covariate interactions: Consistency can vary across covariate values.

Authors:  Sarah Donegan; Nicky J Welton; Catrin Tudur Smith; Umberto D'Alessandro; Sofia Dias
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 5.273

Review 9.  Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review.

Authors:  Aïda Bafeta; Ludovic Trinquart; Raphaèle Seror; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-07-01

10.  Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Sofia Dias; Alex J Sutton; A E Ades; Nicky J Welton
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.