TY - JOUR
T1 - Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses—A scoping review
AU - Wang, Rui
AU - Dwan, Kerry
AU - Showell, Marian G.
AU - van Wely, Madelon
AU - Mol, Ben W.
AU - Askie, Lisa
AU - Seidler, Anna Lene
N1 - Funding Information: Rui Wang, Marian G Showell, Madelon van Wely and Ben W Mol are from the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (Co‐ordinating editor: Madelon van Wely; Editorial Board Members: Rui Wang, Ben W Mol; Information Specialist: Marian G Showell) and they were not involved in the assessment of protocols from this group. Ben W Mol is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). Kerry Dwan is an employee of Cochrane. Lisa Askie and Anna Lene Seidler are Co‐convenors of the Cochrane Prospective Meta‐analysis Methods Group. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
PY - 2021/10/13
Y1 - 2021/10/13
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Cochrane
KW - network meta-analysis
KW - protocol
KW - reporting
KW - transitivity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118356347&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1531
DO - https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1531
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34643333
SN - 1759-2887
JO - Research synthesis methods
JF - Research synthesis methods
ER -