Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study
Authors' conclusion
The current study highlights numerous methodological and reporting deficiencies in anesthesiology NMAs.
Study context
- Population
- Anesthesiology network meta-analyses (NMAs) published from inception to October 2020
- Participants
- 62 NMAs
- Outcome
- Methodological (AMSTAR-2) and reporting (PRISMA-NMA, PRISMA) quality of NMAs
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Methodological and reporting quality
NMAs rated "critically low" by AMSTAR-2 rating method
84%
52/62
AMSTAR-2 score, median [IQR]
55 [44-69]%
PRISMA score, median [IQR]
70 [61-81]%
Correlation of methodological and reporting scores
R = 0.78
Further pooled results
Factors associated with AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores
- Higher scores if published in higher impact factor journals (AMSTAR-2; PRISMA)
- P = 0.006; P = 0.01
- Higher scores if PRISMA-NMA reporting guidelines followed (AMSTAR-2; PRISMA)
- P = 0.001; P = 0.002
- Lower scores for NMAs from China (AMSTAR-2; PRISMA)
- P < 0.001; P < 0.001
- Neither score improved over time (AMSTAR-2; PRISMA)
- P = 0.69; P = 0.67
Original publication
Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study. Can J Anaesth. Published 8 July 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →