网状Meta分析：外科医生用户指南：第二部分 - 确定性
Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty.
作者信息
Chaudhry Harman, Foote Clary J, Guyatt Gordon, Thabane Lehana, Furukawa Toshi A, Petrisor Brad, Bhandari Mohit
机构信息
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, 293 Wellington Street N, Suite 110, Hamilton, ON, L8L 2X2, Canada,
出版信息
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jul;473(7):2172-8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4287-9. Epub 2015 Apr 14.
Abstract
In the previous article (Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons-Part I, Credibility), we presented an approach to evaluating the credibility or methodologic rigor of network meta-analyses (NMA), an innovative approach to simultaneously addressing the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options for a given medical condition or disease state. In the second part of the Users' Guide for Surgeons, we discuss and demonstrate the application of criteria for determining the certainty in effect sizes and directions associated with a given treatment option through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics.
摘要
在上一篇文章（《网络荟萃分析：外科医生用户指南——第一部分，可信度》）中，我们介绍了一种评估网络荟萃分析（NMA）可信度或方法严谨性的方法，这是一种创新方法，可同时解决针对特定医疗状况或疾病状态的三种或更多治疗方案的相对有效性问题。在《外科医生用户指南》的第二部分中，我们通过一个与临床骨科相关的示例，讨论并展示了用于确定与给定治疗方案相关的效应大小和方向的确定性的标准的应用。
相似文献
1
Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty.网状Meta分析：外科医生用户指南：第二部分 - 确定性
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jul;473(7):2172-8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4287-9. Epub 2015 Apr 14.
2
Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part I - Credibility.网状Meta分析：外科医生用户指南：第一部分 - 可信度
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jul;473(7):2166-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4286-x. Epub 2015 Apr 14.
3
Network meta-analysis: users' guide for pediatricians.网状Meta分析：儿科医生用户指南
BMC Pediatr. 2018 May 29;18(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1132-9.
4
Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews: New Guidelines for JBJS.Meta分析与系统评价：《美国骨科医师学会杂志》新指南
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Sep 5;94(17):1537. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.9417edit.
5
Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.外科文献用户指南：如何进行系统的文献综述与荟萃分析。
Can J Surg. 2004 Feb;47(1):60-7.
6
7
Challenges and opportunities in developing quality initiatives in orthopaedics.骨科质量改进举措发展中的挑战与机遇
J Pediatr Orthop. 2012 Sep;32 Suppl 2:S78-82. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318255b1c8.
8
Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.医学文献用户指南。VI. 如何使用综述。循证医学工作组。
JAMA. 1994 Nov 2;272(17):1367-71. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.17.1367.
9
Strengths and limitations of standards of care to guide the orthopedic surgeon in VTE prevention.指导骨科医生进行静脉血栓栓塞症预防的护理标准的优势与局限性。
Orthopedics. 2011 Feb;34(2):121-8. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20101221-25.
10
Research results have expiration dates: ensuring timely systematic reviews.研究结果有保质期：确保及时进行系统评价。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Aug;12(4):454-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00729.x.
引用本文的文献
1
Introduction to network meta-analysis: understanding what it is, how it is done, and how it can be used for decision-making.网络荟萃分析导论：了解其是什么、如何进行以及如何用于决策。
Am J Epidemiol. 2025 Mar 4;194(3):837-843. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwae260.
2
A clinician's guide to network meta-analysis.临床医生网络Meta分析指南
Eye (Lond). 2022 Aug;36(8):1523-1526. doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-01943-5. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
3
What Is the Relative Effectiveness of the Various Surgical Treatment Options for Distal Radius Fractures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.各种桡骨远端骨折手术治疗方法的相对有效性如何？一项随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Feb 1;479(2):348-362. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001524.
4
Do External Supports Improve Dynamic Balance in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability? A Network Meta-analysis.外部支持是否能改善慢性踝关节不稳患者的动态平衡？一项网络荟萃分析。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Feb;478(2):359-377. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000946.
5
Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Misconceptions and the Acceptance of Evidence-based Nonsurgical Interventions for Knee Osteoarthritis. A Qualitative Study.编辑聚焦/五分钟速览：膝关节骨关节炎基于证据的非手术干预的误解与接受度。一项定性研究。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Sep;477(9):1970-1974. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000910.
6
CORR Insights®: Postoperative Thromboprophylaxis With New Oral Anticoagulants is Superior to LMWH in Hip Arthroplasty Surgery: Findings from the Swedish Registry.CORR见解®：新型口服抗凝剂用于髋关节置换手术的术后血栓预防优于低分子肝素：来自瑞典注册研究的结果。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jun;477(6):1344-1346. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000749.
7
Editorial: Sparse-data Bias-What the Savvy Reader Needs to Know.社论：稀疏数据偏差——精明读者需要了解的内容。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Apr;476(4):657-659. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000228.
8
Choosing the optimum strategy for rTMS.选择重复经颅磁刺激的最佳策略。
Evid Based Ment Health. 2018 May;21(2):77-78. doi: 10.1136/eb-2017-102828. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
9
Editorial: Getting the Most from What You Read in Orthopaedic Journals.社论：从骨科期刊阅读中获取最大收益。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jul;475(7):1757-1761. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5371-0. Epub 2017 Apr 28.
10
Which psychotherapy for PTSD?哪种心理疗法适用于创伤后应激障碍？
Evid Based Ment Health. 2016 Nov;19(4):118-119. doi: 10.1136/eb-2016-102487. Epub 2016 Oct 6.
本文引用的文献
1
Which Surgical Treatment for Open Tibial Shaft Fractures Results in the Fewest Reoperations? A Network Meta-analysis.哪种手术治疗开放性胫骨干骨折导致的再次手术最少？一项网状Meta分析。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jul;473(7):2179-92. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4224-y. Epub 2015 Feb 28.
2
A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis.用于对网络荟萃分析中治疗效果估计质量进行评级的GRADE工作组方法。
BMJ. 2014 Sep 24;349:g5630. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5630.
3
Comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators for COPD: a network meta-analysis.长效支气管扩张剂治疗 COPD 的疗效比较：一项网状荟萃分析。
Respir Res. 2013 Oct 7;14(1):100. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-14-100.
4
Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis.网络荟萃分析中的概念和技术挑战。
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Jul 16;159(2):130-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008.
5
Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection.解读不一致的间接和多次治疗比较荟萃分析：直接作用抗病毒药物治疗慢性丙型肝炎感染的评估。
Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jun 20;5:173-83. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S44273. Print 2013.
6
Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers.网络荟萃分析与标准的成对荟萃分析一样有效吗？这完全取决于效应修饰因子的分布情况。
BMC Med. 2013 Jul 4;11:159. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-159.
7
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.15 种抗精神分裂症药物的疗效和耐受性比较：一项多治疗荟萃分析。
Lancet. 2013 Sep 14;382(9896):951-62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60733-3. Epub 2013 Jun 27.
8
Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials published in orthopaedic journals.骨科期刊发表的随机对照试验偏倚风险。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jun 9;13:76. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-76.
9
Editor's spotlight/take 5: Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome (DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-2843-8).编辑聚焦/五分钟速览：特发性尺骨撞击综合征的比较反应性及最小临床重要差异（DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-2843-8）
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 May;471(5):1403-5. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2886-x. Epub 2013 Mar 5.
10
Why the findings of published multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis are different: an overview of recurrent methodological shortcomings.为什么已发表的生物制剂治疗类风湿关节炎的多项治疗比较荟萃分析的结果不同：对反复出现的方法学缺陷的概述。
Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Sep 1;72(9):1524-35. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201574. Epub 2012 Oct 20.
Zotero 插件