School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Methods Support Unit, Editorial & Methods Department, Cochrane Central Executive, London, UK.
Res Synth Methods. 2022 Mar;13(2):164-175. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1531. Epub 2021 Nov 1.
Publishing systematic review protocols is a fundamental part of systematic reviews to ensure transparency and reproducibility. In this scoping review, we aimed to evaluate reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses (NMA). We searched all Cochrane NMA protocols published in 2018 and 2019, and assessed the characteristics and reporting of methodologies relevant to NMA. We reported frequencies for each reporting item. Forty-five protocols were assessed, including two for overviews and 43 for intervention reviews. Thirty-three (73%) were labelled as NMA protocols in the title. Forty-two (95%) justified the need of an NMA and 40 (89%) used appropriate search strategies to identify potential eligible studies. About half (24, 53%) considered the transitivity assumption when reporting inclusion criteria and 35 (78%) specified potential effect modifiers. Forty-three (96%) reported statistical software for NMA, 25 (56%) reported NMA model choice, 32 (71%) reported framework choice and 32 (71%) reported assumption about heterogeneity variances. Protocols varied in whether they reported methods for relative ranking (35, 78%), statistical inconsistency (40, 89%), reporting bias (44, 98%) and sources of heterogeneity (39, 87%). In conclusion, Cochrane NMA protocols reported multiple NMA-specific items well, but could be further improved, especially regarding transitivity assumptions. Our recommendations for NMA protocol reporting based on this scoping review could assist authors, reviewers, and editors to improve NMA protocols.
发表系统评价方案是系统评价的一个基本组成部分，可确保透明性和可重复性。在本次范围综述中，我们旨在评估 Cochrane 系统评价网络荟萃分析（NMA）方案的报告情况。我们检索了 2018 年和 2019 年发表的所有 Cochrane NMA 方案，并评估了与 NMA 相关的方法学的特征和报告情况。我们报告了每个报告项目的出现频率。共评估了 45 个方案，其中 2 个为综述方案，43 个为干预性评价方案。33 个（73%）在标题中标明为 NMA 方案。42 个（95%）说明了进行 NMA 的必要性，40 个（89%）使用了适当的检索策略来确定潜在的合格研究。约一半（24 个，53%）在报告纳入标准时考虑了可传递性假设，35 个（78%）明确了潜在的效应修饰因子。43 个（96%）报告了 NMA 的统计软件，25 个（56%）报告了 NMA 模型选择，32 个（71%）报告了框架选择，32 个（71%）报告了对异质性方差的假设。方案在是否报告相对排名的方法（35 个，78%）、统计不一致性（40 个，89%）、报告偏倚（44 个，98%）和异质性来源（39 个，87%）方面存在差异。总之，Cochrane NMA 方案很好地报告了多个 NMA 特定项目，但仍有改进的空间，特别是在可传递性假设方面。本研究基于范围综述提出的 NMA 方案报告建议，可帮助作者、评审者和编辑改进 NMA 方案。
