Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Programme, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil.
Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil.
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 30;13(4):e0196644. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196644. eCollection 2018.
Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a new tool developed to overcome some limitations of pairwise meta-analyses. NMAs provide evidence on more than two comparators simultaneously. This study aimed to map the characteristics of the published NMAs on drug therapy comparisons.
A systematic review of NMAs comparing pharmacological interventions was performed. Searches in Medline (PubMed) and Scopus along with manual searches were conducted. The main characteristics of NMAs were systematically collected: publication metadata, criteria for drug inclusion, statistical methods used, and elements reported. A methodological quality score with 25 key elements was created and applied to the included NMAs. To identify potential trends, the median of the publication year distribution was used as a cut-off.
The study identified 365 NMAs published from 2003 to 2016 in more than 30 countries. Randomised controlled trials were the primary source of data, with only 5% including observational studies, and 230 NMAs used a placebo as a comparator. Less than 15% of NMAs were registered in PROSPERO or a similar system. One third of studies followed PRISMA and less than 9% Cochrane recommendations. Around 30% presented full-search strategies of the systematic review, and 146 NMAs stated the selection criteria for drug inclusion. Over 75% of NMAs presented network plots, but only half described their geometry. Statistical parameters (model fit, inconsistency, convergence) were properly reported by one third of NMAs. Although 216 studies exhibited supplemental material, no data set of primary studies was available. The methodological quality score (mean 13·9; SD 3·8) presented a slightly positive trend over the years.
The map of the published NMAs emphasises the potential of this tool to gather evidence in healthcare, but it also identified some weaknesses, especially in the report, which limits its transparency and reproducibility.
网络荟萃分析(NMA)是一种新的工具,旨在克服一些两两荟萃分析的局限性。NMA 可同时提供超过两种比较的证据。本研究旨在绘制药物治疗比较的已发表 NMA 的特征图谱。
对比较药理学干预的 NMA 进行系统综述。在 Medline(PubMed)和 Scopus 中进行了检索,同时进行了手工检索。系统地收集了 NMA 的主要特征:出版物元数据、药物纳入标准、使用的统计方法和报告的要素。创建了一个包含 25 个关键要素的方法学质量评分,并应用于纳入的 NMA。为了识别潜在趋势,使用出版年份分布的中位数作为截止值。
该研究确定了 2003 年至 2016 年间在 30 多个国家发表的 365 篇 NMA。随机对照试验是数据的主要来源,只有 5%的研究包括观察性研究,230 篇 NMA 采用安慰剂作为比较。不到 15%的 NMA 在 PROSPERO 或类似系统中注册。三分之一的研究遵循 PRISMA,不到 9%的研究遵循 Cochrane 建议。大约 30%的研究呈现了系统综述的完整检索策略,146 篇 NMA 陈述了药物纳入的选择标准。超过 75%的 NMA 呈现了网络图,但只有一半描述了它们的几何形状。三分之一的 NMA 正确报告了统计参数(模型拟合、不一致性、收敛性)。虽然 216 项研究有补充材料,但没有原始研究数据集可用。方法学质量评分(平均 13.9;标准差 3.8)呈略正趋势。
已发表 NMA 的图谱强调了该工具在医疗保健中汇集证据的潜力,但也发现了一些弱点,特别是在报告方面,这限制了其透明度和可重复性。