CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis

Yepes-Nuñez, Juan José, Li, Shelly-Anne, Guyatt, Gordon, Jack, Susan M., Brozek, Jan L., Beyene, Joseph, Murad, M. Hassan, Rochwerg, Bram, Mbuagbaw, Lawrence, Zhang, Yuan, Flórez, Ivan D., Siemieniuk, Reed A., Sadeghirad, Behnam, Mustafa, Reem, Santesso, Nancy, Schünemann, Holger J.·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The aim of the study was to develop a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings (SoF) table format that displays the critical information from a network meta-analysis (NMA).Study design and setting We applied a user experience model for data analysis based on four rounds of semistructured interviews.Results We interviewed 32 stakeholders who conduct or use MA. Four rounds of interviews produced six candidate NMA-SoF tables. Users found a final NMA-SoF table that included the following components highly acceptable: (1) details of the clinical question (PICO), (2) a plot depicting network geometry, (3) relative and absolute effect estimates, (4) certainty of evidence, (5) ranking of treatments, and (6) interpretation of findings.Conclusion Using stakeholder feedback, we developed a new GRADE NMA-SoF table that includes the relevant components that facilitate understanding NMA findings and health decision-making.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.018

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Schünemann, 2008, Chapter 11: presenting results and ‘Summary of findings' tables, 2008
  2. Patton, 2002, Chapter 5. Designing qualitative studies, 230

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 218

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yepes-Nuñez, J. J., Li, S.-A., Guyatt, G., Jack, S. M., Brozek, J. L., Beyene, J., Murad, M. H., Rochwerg, B., Mbuagbaw, L., Zhang, Y., Flórez, I. D., Siemieniuk, R. A., Sadeghirad, B., Mustafa, R., Santesso, N., & Schünemann, H. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Schünemann, Holger J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
115
Pages
1-13
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.018
OpenAlex
W2943784761
Cited by
218
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 9
FWCI
19.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
network meta-analysis, summary of findings tables, GRADE, stakeholder feedback, user experience, network geometry, quality of evidence, treatment ranking, health decision-making, PICO
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Network Meta-Analysis as Topic, Decision Making, Humans, Evidence-Based Medicine, Information Dissemination, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review