Semi-automated assessment of the risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis: a guidance paper for the ROB-MEN web-application
Open accessAbstract
Network meta-analysis compares multiple interventions and estimates the relative treatment effects between all interventions, combining both direct and indirect evidence. Recently, a framework was developed to assess the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) which is part of the more comprehensive framework to evaluate the Confidence In the evidence for Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). To produce an overall risk of bias judgement for each network estimate, ROB-MEN: performs an assessment of the bias due to missing evidence in each possible pairwise comparison; combines the assessment with the contribution from the direct pairwise comparisons; considers the potential for small-study effects. To facilitate and semi-automate this process, ROB-MEN has been implemented in a user-friendly web-application ( https://cinema.ispm.unibe.ch/rob-men ). Here we provide a tutorial detailing the functionality and use of the application consisting of data upload, analysis configuration, output visualisation, and production of the tool’s output tables for recording the risk of bias assessment. We also illustrate an example application using the demo dataset available for download on the application’s homepage. The ROB-MEN web-application is open-source and freely available ( https://github.com/esm-ispm-unibe-ch/rob-men ).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
The ROB-MEN tool was used to assess reporting bias, including effects from small studies.
“We used the risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) tool to assess reporting bias, which includes the assessment of effects from small studies.52”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Chiocchia, V., Holloway, A., & Salanti, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Chiocchia, Virginia
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2023-10-07
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 223-223
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10559514
- OpenAlex
- W4387428593
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 4.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (179158)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- network meta-analysis, risk of bias, absence of evidence, cinema, small-study effects, web application, confidence in evidence, pairwise comparison
- MeSH terms
- Bias
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
