Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2026
The Adjuvant Efficacy of Angong Niuhuang Pill in the Treatment of Viral Encephalitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Published on: April 19, 2024
Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review
Aïda Bafeta1, Ludovic Trinquart, Raphaèle Seror
1INSERM U738 Research Unit, Paris, France.
Objective:
To examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews.
Design:
Methodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses.
Data Sources:
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.
Review Methods:
All network meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy of three or more interventions based on randomised controlled trials, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. We assessed the reporting of general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process using two composite outcomes. For some components, if reporting was adequate, we assessed their conduct quality.
Results:
Of 121 network meta-analyses covering a wide range of medical areas, 100 (83%) assessed pharmacological interventions and 11 (9%) non-pharmacological interventions; 56 (46%) were published in journals with a high impact factor. The electronic search strategy for each database was not reported in 88 (73%) network meta-analyses; for 36 (30%), the primary outcome was not clearly identified. Overall, 61 (50%) network meta-analyses did not report any information regarding the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies, and 103 (85%) did not report any methods to assess the likelihood of publication bias. Overall, 87 (72%) network meta-analyses did not report the literature search, searched only one database, did not search other sources, or did not report an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies. These methodological components did not differ by publication in a general or specialty journal or by public or private funding.
Conclusions:
Essential methodological components of the systematic review process-conducting a literature search and assessing risk of bias of individual studies-are frequently lacking in reports of network meta-analyses, even when published in journals with high impact factors.
Related Concept Videos
01:18The Scientific Method in Nursing Process
When using research findings to change practice, one must understand the process used to guide a study. The scientific method is a systematic, step-by-step process that supports the data's validity, reliability, and generalizability. As a result, findings can be safely...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.
01:15Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
01:12Analysis of Population Pharmacokinetic Data
01:25Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data