TY - JOUR
T1 - Additional considerations are required when preparing a protocol for a systematic review with multiple interventions
AU - Chaimani, Anna
AU - Caldwell, Deborah M.
AU - Li, Tianjing
AU - Higgins, Julian P.T.
AU - Salanti, Georgia
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: The work of A.C. and G.S. is supported by the OPERAM project from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement no. 634238. This project is supported by the Methods Innovation Fund Program of the Cochrane Collaboration (MIF1) under the project “Methods for comparing multiple interventions in Intervention reviews and Overviews of reviews.” D.M.C. is supported by a Medical Research Council Population Health Scientist fellowship award G0902118. This work was also undertaken with the support of the Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economist and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - Objectives The number of systematic reviews that aim to compare multiple interventions using network meta-analysis is increasing. In this study, we highlight aspects of a standard systematic review protocol that may need modification when multiple interventions are to be compared. Study Design and Setting We take the protocol format suggested by Cochrane for a standard systematic review as our reference and compare the considerations for a pairwise review with those required for a valid comparison of multiple interventions. We suggest new sections for protocols of systematic reviews including network meta-analyses with a focus on how to evaluate their assumptions. We provide example text from published protocols to exemplify the considerations. Conclusion Standard systematic review protocols for pairwise meta-analyses need extensions to accommodate the increased complexity of network meta-analysis. Our suggested modifications are widely applicable to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews involving network meta-analyses.
AB - Objectives The number of systematic reviews that aim to compare multiple interventions using network meta-analysis is increasing. In this study, we highlight aspects of a standard systematic review protocol that may need modification when multiple interventions are to be compared. Study Design and Setting We take the protocol format suggested by Cochrane for a standard systematic review as our reference and compare the considerations for a pairwise review with those required for a valid comparison of multiple interventions. We suggest new sections for protocols of systematic reviews including network meta-analyses with a focus on how to evaluate their assumptions. We provide example text from published protocols to exemplify the considerations. Conclusion Standard systematic review protocols for pairwise meta-analyses need extensions to accommodate the increased complexity of network meta-analysis. Our suggested modifications are widely applicable to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews involving network meta-analyses.
KW - Comparative effectiveness review
KW - Eligibility criteria
KW - Indirect comparison
KW - Mixed treatment comparison
KW - Network meta-analysis
KW - Transitivity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012918706&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012918706&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.015
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 28088593
AN - SCOPUS:85012918706
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 83
SP - 65
EP - 74
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -