bmj网络荟萃分析报道存在不均衡性.docx

BMJ 2014;348:g1741 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1741 (Published 11 March 2014)Page 1 of 9ResearchRESEARCHReporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review OPEN ACCESSA?da Bafeta PhD student 1, Ludovic Trinquart postdoctoral research fellow 1 2 3 4, Raphaèle Seror associate professor of rheumatology1 3, Philippe Ravaud professor of epidemiology and director1 2 3 41Assistance Publique-H?pitaux de Paris, Centre d’Epidémiologie Clinique, INSERM U1153, H?pital H?tel-Dieu, 75004 Paris, France; 2UniversitéParis Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris; 3French Cochrane Centre, Paris; 4Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, USAAbstractObjective To examine how the results of network meta-analyses are reported.Design Methodological systematic review of published 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.Study selection All network meta-analyses comparing the clinical efficacy of three or more interventions in randomised controlled trials were included, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions.Data extraction and synthesis The reporting of the network and results was assessed. A composite outcome included the description of the network (number of interventions, direct comparisons, and randomised controlled trials and patients for each comparison) and the reporting of effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis.Results 121 network meta-analyses (55 published in general journals; 48 funded by at least one private source) were included. The network and its geometry (network graph) were not reported in 100 (83%) articles. The effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis were not reported in 48 (40%), 108 (89%), and 43 (36%) articles,