Suppr超能文献

网络荟萃分析中非药物治疗的节点生成过程报告不充分。

Node-making process in network meta-analysis of nonpharmacological treatment are poorly reported.

机构信息

Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris 75004, France.

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.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:95-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.018. Epub 2017 Nov 28.

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.

摘要

目的

确定支持网络荟萃分析(NMA)中非药物治疗节点制定过程的方法。

研究设计和设置

我们分两个阶段进行。首先,我们对 NMA 的指南和方法学文章进行了文献回顾,以确定将干预措施组合成节点的方法。其次,我们对非药物治疗的 NMA 进行了系统评价,以提取作者支持节点制定过程所使用的方法。我们检索了 MEDLINE 和 Google Scholar,以确定评估 NMA 指南或旨在为 NMA 作者提供方法的方法学文章。我们检索了 MEDLINE、CENTRAL 和 EMBASE,以确定包括至少一种非药物治疗的 NMA 报告。这两次检索都涉及从数据库开始到 2016 年 3 月的文章。从方法学回顾中,我们确定并提取了将干预措施组合成节点的方法。从系统评价中,只要描述的方法支持节点制定过程,就评估网络的报告。

结果

在文献综述中检索到的 116 篇文章中,有 12 篇(10%)讨论了 NMA 中干预措施分组或拆分的概念。在方法学综述中没有确定一致的方法,专家共识是唯一支持节点制定过程的方法。在系统评价的 5187 篇参考文献中,我们纳入了 2007 年至 2016 年发表的 110 篇 NMA 报告。88 篇(80%)报告在引言部分描述了节点,这表明节点内容可能是在系统评价之前预先决定的。9 篇(8.1%)报告描述了构建网络节点的特定过程或理由。确定了两种方法:(1)拟合先前发表的分类;(2)专家共识。

结论

尽管在单一适应证下有多种干预措施可供选择时,NMA 在证据提供方面具有重要意义,但缺乏关于 NMA 中节点制定过程报告的建议,并且 NMA 中节点制定过程的报告似乎不足。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验