IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0113277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Guidance Are Researchers Given on How to Present Network Meta-Analyses to End-Users such as Policymakers and Clinicians? A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Shannon M Sullivan
  • Doug Coyle
  • George Wells

Abstract

Introduction: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) are complex methodological approaches that may be challenging for non-technical end-users, such as policymakers and clinicians, to understand. Consideration should be given to identifying optimal approaches to presenting NMAs that help clarify analyses. It is unclear what guidance researchers currently have on how to present and tailor NMAs to different end-users. Methods: A systematic review of NMA guidelines was conducted to identify guidance on how to present NMAs. Electronic databases and supplementary sources were searched for NMA guidelines. Presentation format details related to sample formats, target audiences, data sources, analysis methods and results were extracted and frequencies tabulated. Guideline quality was assessed following criteria developed for clinical practice guidelines. Results: Seven guidelines were included. Current guidelines focus on how to conduct NMAs but provide limited guidance to researchers on how to best present analyses to different end-users. None of the guidelines provided reporting templates. Few guidelines provided advice on tailoring presentations to different end-users, such as policymakers. Available guidance on presentation formats focused on evidence networks, characteristics of individual trials, comparisons between direct and indirect estimates and assumptions of heterogeneity and/or inconsistency. Some guidelines also provided examples of figures and tables that could be used to present information. Conclusions: Limited guidance exists for researchers on how best to present NMAs in an accessible format, especially for non-technical end-users such as policymakers and clinicians. NMA guidelines may require further integration with end-users' needs, when NMAs are used to support healthcare policy and practice decisions. Developing presentation formats that enhance understanding and accessibility of NMAs could also enhance the transparency and legitimacy of decisions informed by NMAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Shannon M Sullivan & Doug Coyle & George Wells, 2014. "What Guidance Are Researchers Given on How to Present Network Meta-Analyses to End-Users such as Policymakers and Clinicians? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0113277
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113277
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113277&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0113277?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Chaimani & Julian P T Higgins & Dimitris Mavridis & Panagiota Spyridonos & Georgia Salanti, 2013. "Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Georgia Salanti & Cinzia Del Giovane & Anna Chaimani & Deborah M Caldwell & Julian P T Higgins, 2014. "Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-14, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fernanda S Tonin & Helena H Borba & Antonio M Mendes & Astrid Wiens & Fernando Fernandez-Llimos & Roberto Pontarolo, 2019. "Description of network meta-analysis geometry: A metrics design study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cho-Hao Lee & Po-Huang Chen & Chin Lin & Chieh-Yung Wang & Ching-Liang Ho, 2020. "A network meta-analysis of maintenance therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Cho Naing & Maxine A Whittaker & Norah Htet Htet & Saint Nway Aye & Joon Wah Mak, 2019. "Efficacy of antimalarial drugs for treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Asian region: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Xavier Armoiry & Alexander Tsertsvadze & Martin Connock & Pamela Royle & G J Melendez-Torres & Pierre-Jean Souquet & Aileen Clarke, 2018. "Comparative efficacy and safety of licensed treatments for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Fernanda S Tonin & Helena H Borba & Antonio M Mendes & Astrid Wiens & Fernando Fernandez-Llimos & Roberto Pontarolo, 2019. "Description of network meta-analysis geometry: A metrics design study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Konstantinos Katsanos & Panagiotis Kitrou & Stavros Spiliopoulos & Ioannis Maroulis & Theodore Petsas & Dimitris Karnabatidis, 2017. "Comparative effectiveness of different transarterial embolization therapies alone or in combination with local ablative or adjuvant systemic treatments for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A net," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-31, September.
    6. Keith Tolley & Michael Hutchinson & Xiaojun You & Ping Wang & Bjoern Sperling & Ankush Taneja & Mohammed Kashif Siddiqui & Elizabeth Kinter, 2015. "A Network Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Evaluation of Safety of Subcutaneous Pegylated Interferon Beta-1a versus Other Injectable Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    7. Howard Thom & Frank Ender & Saisudha Samavedam & Caridad Perez Vivez & Subhajit Gupta & Mukesh Dhariwal & Jan de Haan & Derek O’Boyle, 2019. "Effect of AcrySof versus other intraocular lens properties on the risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy after cataract surgery: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-15, August.
    8. EunJin Ahn & GeunJoo Choi & Hyun Kang & ChongWha Baek & YongHun Jung & YoungCheol Woo & SiRa Bang, 2018. "Supraglottic airway devices as a strategy for unassisted tracheal intubation: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Ajaree Rayanakorn & Hooi-Leng Ser & Priyia Pusparajah & Kok-Gan Chan & Bey Hing Goh & Tahir Mehmood Khan & Surasak Saokaew & Shaun Wen Huey Lee & Learn-Han Lee, 2020. "Comparative efficacy of antibiotic(s) alone or in combination of corticosteroids in adults with acute bacterial meningitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Dandan Li & Tiansheng Wang & Su Shen & Sheng Cheng & Junxian Yu & Yang Zhang & Chao Zhang & Huilin Tang, 2015. "Effects of Fluroquinolones in Newly Diagnosed, Sputum-Positive Tuberculosis Therapy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Dong Hyuk Kang & Kang Su Cho & Won Sik Ham & Hyungmin Lee & Jong Kyou Kwon & Young Deuk Choi & Joo Yong Lee, 2016. "Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Amin Doosti-Irani & Mohammad Ali Mansournia & Abbas Rahimi-Foroushani & Peiman Haddad & Kourosh Holakouie-Naieni, 2017. "Complications of stent placement in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Chao Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1177-1197, November.
    14. Gyeongsil Lee & Seung-Won Oh & Seung-Sik Hwang & Ji Won Yoon & Sungchan Kang & Hee-Kyung Joh & Hyuktae Kwon & Jeehyun Kim & Danbee Park, 2017. "Comparative effectiveness of oral antidiabetic drugs in preventing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Jia-Guo Zhao & Jia Wang & Xiao-Hui Meng & Xian-Tie Zeng & Shi-Lian Kan, 2017. "Surgical interventions to treat humerus shaft fractures: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-12, March.
    16. Michael C Sulz & Arne Kröger & Meher Prakash & Christine N Manser & Henriette Heinrich & Benjamin Misselwitz, 2016. "Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Bowel Preparation on Adenoma Detection: Early Adenomas Affected Stronger than Advanced Adenomas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Ivan D Florez & Areti-Angeliki Veroniki & Reem Al Khalifah & Juan J Yepes-Nuñez & Javier M Sierra & Robin W M Vernooij & Jorge Acosta-Reyes & Claudia M Granados & Giordano Pérez-Gaxiola & Carlos Cuell, 2018. "Comparative effectiveness and safety of interventions for acute diarrhea and gastroenteritis in children: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Jintae Park & Sungha Yoon & Chaeyoung Lee & Junseok Kim, 2020. "A Simple Method for Network Visualization," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-13, June.
    19. Theodoros Papakonstantinou & Adriani Nikolakopoulou & Julian P. T. Higgins & Matthias Egger & Georgia Salanti, 2020. "CINeMA: Software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), March.
    20. Gretchen Bjornstad & Shreya Sonthalia & Benjamin Rouse & Leanne Freeman & Natasha Hessami & Jo Hickman Dunne & Nick Axford, 2024. "A comparison of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural interventions based on delivery features for elevated symptoms of depression in adolescents: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0113277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.