Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridSalanti, Georgia/0000-0002-3830-8508
dc.authoridKontouli, Katerina Maria/0000-0003-4261-2841
dc.authoridMavridis, Dimitris/0000-0003-1041-4592
dc.authoridTsokani, Sofia/0000-0002-6258-8861
dc.contributor.authorVeroniki, Areti Angeliki
dc.contributor.authorTsokani, Sofia
dc.contributor.authorZevgiti, Stella
dc.contributor.authorPagkalidou, Irene
dc.contributor.authorKontouli, Katerina-Maria
dc.contributor.authorAmbarcioglu, Pinar
dc.contributor.authorPandis, Nikos
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-18T20:33:01Z
dc.date.available2024-09-18T20:33:01Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentHatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods: We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results: In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8-32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6-16%. Conclusions: NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSwiss National Science Foundation [179158]; European Union [754936]; SNSF [320030_179158]; Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation; Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis; Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [320030_179158] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant/award number 179158. AAV, ST, SZ, KMK, and DM were funded from the European Union's Horizon 2020 [No. 754936]. AN, TP, and GS have been supported by SNSF grant agreement 320030_179158. SES is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation. ACT is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13643-021-01780-9
dc.identifier.issn2046-4053
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid34507621en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85114718311en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01780-9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/11265
dc.identifier.volume10en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000694829000001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBmcen_US
dc.relation.ispartofSystematic Reviewsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectMultiple treatment meta-analysisen_US
dc.subjectPRISMA-NMAen_US
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_US
dc.subjectReportingen_US
dc.titleDo reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim
İsim:
Tam Metin / Full Text
Boyut:
3.4 MB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
İndir

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu