CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol

Veroniki, Areti Angeliki, Hutton, Brian, Stevens, Adrienne, McKenzie, Joanne E., Page, Matthew J., Moher, David, McGowan, Jessie, Straus, Sharon E., Li, Tianjing, Munn, Zachary, Pollock, Danielle, Colquhoun, Heather, Godfrey, Christina, Smith, Maureen, Tufte, Janice, Logan, Sherrie, Catalá-López, Ferrán, Tovey, David, Franco, Juan V.A., Chang, Stephanie, Garritty, Chantelle, Hartling, Lisa, Horsley, Tanya, Langlois, Etienne V., McInnes, Matthew, Offringa, Martin, Welch, Vivian, Pritchard, Chris, Khalil, Hanan, Mittmann, Nicole, Peters, Micah, Konstantinidis, Menelaos, Elsman, Ellen B.M., Kelly, Shannon E., Aldcroft, Adrian, Thirugnanasampanthar, Sai Surabi, Dourka, Jasmeen, Neupane, Dipika, Well, George, Akl, Elie, Wilson, Michael, Soares-Weiser, Karla, Tricco, Andrea C.·2025·JBI Evidence Synthesis
DOI 10.11124/jbies-24-00308PMC PMC11892999
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to develop a list of items for potential inclusion in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for network meta-analysis (NMA), scoping reviews (ScRs), and rapid reviews (RRs). Introduction: The PRISMA extensions for NMA and ScRs were published in 2015 and 2018. However, since then, their methodologies and innovations, including automation, have evolved. There is no reporting guideline for RRs. In 2020, an updated PRISMA statement was published, reflecting advances in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. These advances are not yet incorporated into these PRISMA extensions. We will update our previous methods for scoping reviews to inform the update of PRISMA-NMA and PRISMA-ScR as well as the development of the PRISMA-RR reporting guidelines. Inclusion criteria: This review will include any study design evaluating the completeness of reporting, offering reporting guidance, or assessing methods relevant to NMA, ScRs, or RRs. Editorial guidelines and tutorials that describe items related to reporting completeness will also be eligible. Methods: We will follow the JBI guidance for scoping reviews. For each PRISMA extension, we will i) search multiple electronic databases from inception to present, ii) search for unpublished studies, and iii) scan the reference lists of included studies. There will be no language limitations. Screening and data extraction will be conducted by 2 researchers independently. A third researcher will resolve discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analyses of the identified items. The final list of items will be considered for potential inclusion in the relevant PRISMA reporting guidelines. Review registration: NMA protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy); ScR protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy); RR protocol (OSF: osf.io/3jcpe); EQUATOR registration link: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.11124/jbies-24-00308

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Chalmers, 2014, How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set, Lancet, 383, 156, 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ioannidis, 2014, Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis, Lancet, 383, 166, 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med, 6, e1000097, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Rouse, 2017, Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians, Intern Emerg Med, 12, 103, 10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Sutton, 2008, Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment, Pharmacoeconomics, 26, 753, 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00006 · DOI
  6. Salanti, 2011, Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 163, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Munn, 2022, What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis, JBI Evid Synth, 20, 950, 10.11124/JBIES-21-00483 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Colquhoun, 2014, Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting, J Clin Epidemiol, 67, 1291, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Khangura, 2012, Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach, Syst Rev, 1, 10, 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tricco, 2022, Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before, Syst Rev, 11, 153, 10.1186/s13643-022-01887-7 · DOI
  11. Ceravolo, 2021, Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field, Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 57, 850
  12. Ceravolo, 2020, Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review, Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 56, 642, 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06501-6 · DOI
  13. de Sire, 2020, Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review, Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 56, 839
  14. de Sire, 2021, Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field. Update as of December 31, 2020 and synthesis of the scientific literature of 2020, Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 57, 181, 10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06870-2 · DOI
  15. Andrenelli, 2020, Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review 2020 by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field, Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 56, 846
  16. Negrini, 2021, Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review 2020 by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field, Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 57, 166
  17. Veroniki, 2022, Modeling multicomponent interventions in network meta-analysis, Methods Mol Biol, 2345, 245, 10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_15 · DOI
  18. Rucker, 2020, Network meta-analysis of multicomponent interventions, Biom J, 62, 808, 10.1002/bimj.201800167 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Watt, 2022, Incorporating dose effects in network meta-analysis, BMJ, 376, e067003, 10.1136/bmj-2021-067003 · DOI
  20. Mavridis, 2020, Dealing with missing outcome data in meta-analysis, Res Synth Methods, 11, 2, 10.1002/jrsm.1349 · DOI
  21. Chiocchia, 2021, ROB-MEN: a tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis, BMC Med, 19, 304, 10.1186/s12916-021-02166-3 · DOI
  22. Watt, 2022, Network meta-analysis, Methods Mol Biol, 2345, 187, 10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_12 · DOI
  23. Brignardello-Petersen, 2023, Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation concept article 5: addressing intransitivity in a network meta-analysis, J Clin Epidemiol, 160, 151, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.010 · DOI
  24. Peters, 2022, Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols, JBI Evid Synth, 20, 953, 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Khalil, 2022, The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste, J Clin Epidemiol, 152, 30, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.012 · DOI
  26. Pollock, 2022, Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group, JBI Evid Synth, 20, 969, 10.11124/JBIES-21-00416 · DOI · Paper page
  27. McGrath, 2017, Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review, Syst Rev, 6, 194, 10.1186/s13643-017-0590-8 · DOI
  28. Garritty, 2020, Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: a comparative study, PLoS One, 15, e0238025, 10.1371/journal.pone.0238025 · DOI
  29. Robson, 2023, Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries, Health Res Policy Syst, 21, 45, 10.1186/s12961-023-00992-w · DOI
  30. Dewidar, 2022, Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development, J Clin Epidemiol, 150, 142, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.007 · DOI
  31. Tricco, 2020, Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps, J Clin Epidemiol, 126, 177, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.029 · DOI
  32. Stevens, Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews. BMJ Evid Based Med 2014 [online ahead of print]
  33. Page, 2023, The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence, Syst Rev, 12, 196, 10.1186/s13643-023-02363-6 · DOI
  34. Nguyen, 2022, Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study, BMJ, 379, e072428, 10.1136/bmj-2022-072428 · DOI
  35. Pratt, 2020, A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions, Syst Rev, 9, 97, 10.1186/s13643-020-01328-3 · DOI
  36. Lee, 2018, Critical quality evaluation of network meta-analyses in dental care, J Dent, 75, 7, 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.05.010 · DOI
  37. Hirt, 2023, Searching a methods topic: practical challenges and implications for search design, J Clin Epidemiol, 166, 111201, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.017 · DOI
  38. Lunny, 2022, Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool), BMJ Evid Based Med
  39. Haddaway, 2022, Citationchaser: a tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching, Res Synth Methods, 13, 533, 10.1002/jrsm.1563 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Moher, 2010, Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines, PLoS Med, 7, e1000217, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Veroniki, A. A., Hutton, B., Stevens, A., McKenzie, J. E., Page, M. J., Moher, D., McGowan, J., Straus, S. E., Li, T., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C., Smith, M., Tufte, J., Logan, S., Catalá-López, F., Tovey, D., Franco, J. V. A., Chang, S., Garritty, C., Hartling, L., Horsley, T., Langlois, E. V., McInnes, M., Offringa, M., Welch, V., Pritchard, C., Khalil, H., Mittmann, N., Peters, M., Konstantinidis, M., Elsman, E. B. M., Kelly, S. E., Aldcroft, A., Thirugnanasampanthar, S. S., Dourka, J., Neupane, D., Well, G., Akl, E., Wilson, M., Soares-Weiser, K., & Tricco, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Centre for Immunization Programs, Infectious Diseases and Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
  • Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
  • Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
  • Patient Partner, Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, London, United Kingdom
  • Patient Partner, Cochrane Consumer, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Ambassador, Washington, DC, USA
  • Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Sussex, United Kingdom
  • Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
  • American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  • Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
  • Research and Evaluation, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Child Health, Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Institute of Health and Allied Professions, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • La Trobe University, School of Psychology and Public Health, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
  • Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, United Kingdom
  • American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
  • Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
  • Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom
Venue
JBI Evidence Synthesis
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2025-01-20
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
517-526
ISSN
2689-8381
DOI
10.11124/jbies-24-00308
PMC
PMC11892999
Cited by
110
References
19
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (unspecified)

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