Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, University Campus, Ioannina 45110, Greece.
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;83:65-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.015. Epub 2017 Jan 11.
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.
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.
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.
旨在通过网络荟萃分析比较多种干预措施的系统评价数量正在增加。在本研究中，我们强调了在需要比较多种干预措施时，标准系统评价方案中可能需要修改的方面。
我们以 Cochrane 建议的标准系统评价方案格式为参考，将成对评价的考虑因素与多组干预措施的有效比较所需的考虑因素进行比较。我们为包括网络荟萃分析的系统评价方案提出了新的章节，重点介绍如何评估其假设。我们提供了已发表方案的示例文本，以举例说明需要考虑的因素。
针对成对荟萃分析的标准系统评价方案需要扩展，以适应网络荟萃分析日益增加的复杂性。我们建议的修改广泛适用于涉及网络荟萃分析的 Cochrane 和非 Cochrane 系统评价。
