文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：Epidemiology Characteristics, Methodological Assessment and Reporting of Statistical Analysis of Network Meta-Analyses in the Field of Cancer

作者：Ge, Long[1,2,3];Tian, Jin-hui[2,3];Li, Xiu-xia[2,3];Song, Fujian[4];Li, Lun[5];Zhang, Jun[6];Li, Ge[7];Pei, Gai-qin[8];Qiu, Xia[8];Yang, Ke-hu[2,3]

第一作者：Ge, Long

通信作者：Yang, KH[1];Yang, KH[2]

机构：[1]Lanzhou Univ, Clin Med Coll 1, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[2]Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[3]Key Lab Evidence Based Med & Knowledge Translat G, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[4]Univ East Anglia, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Norwich Med Sch, Norwich, Norfolk, England;[5]Cent South Univ, Xiangya Hosp 2, Dept Breast Thyroid Surg, Changsha 410000, Hunan, Peoples R China;[6]Gansu Univ Tradit Chinese Med, Sch Basic Med Sci, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[7]Tianjin Univ Tradit Chinese Med, Sch Chinese Med, Tianjin 300193, Peoples R China;[8]Lanzhou Univ, Clin Med Coll 2, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China

第一机构：Lanzhou Univ, Clin Med Coll 1, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China

通信机构：[1]corresponding author), Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[2]corresponding author), Key Lab Evidence Based Med & Knowledge Translat G, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China.

年份：2016

卷号：6

外文期刊名：SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

收录：;Scopus(收录号：2-s2.0-84995584170);WOS:【SCI-EXPANDED(收录号:WOS:000387918900001)】；

语种：英文

摘要：Because of the methodological complexity of network meta-analyses (NMAs), NMAs may be more vulnerable to methodological risks than conventional pair-wise meta-analysis. Our study aims to investigate epidemiology characteristics, conduction of literature search, methodological quality and reporting of statistical analysis process in the field of cancer based on PRISMA extension statement and modified AMSTAR checklist. We identified and included 102 NMAs in the field of cancer. 61 NMAs were conducted using a Bayesian framework. Of them, more than half of NMAs did not report assessment of convergence (60.66%). Inconsistency was assessed in 27.87% of NMAs. Assessment of heterogeneity in traditional meta-analyses was more common (42.62%) than in NMAs (6.56%). Most of NMAs did not report assessment of similarity (86.89%) and did not used GRADE tool to assess quality of evidence (95.08%). 43 NMAs were adjusted indirect comparisons, the methods used were described in 53.49% NMAs. Only 4.65% NMAs described the details of handling of multi group trials and 6.98% described the methods of similarity assessment. The median total AMSTAR-score was 8.00 (IQR: 6.00-8.25). Methodological quality and reporting of statistical analysis did not substantially differ by selected general characteristics. Overall, the quality of NMAs in the field of cancer was generally acceptable.