ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2172-0221
Current Organisation
University of York
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Research Square Platform LLC
Date: 15-02-2021
DOI: 10.21203/RS.3.RS-242201/V1
Abstract: Introduction: Systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA i.e., multiple treatment comparisons, indirect comparisons) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA. Such a list will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs which are being updated. Methods and Analysis: We will include articles that present items related to bias, reporting, or methodological quality, articles assessing the methodological quality of reviews with NMA, or papers presenting methods for NMAs. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and difficult to locate/unpublished literature. Once all items have been extracted, we will combine conceptually similar items, classifying them as referring to bias or to other aspects of quality (e.g. reporting). When relevant, reporting items will be re-worded into items related to bias in NMA review conclusions, and then re-worded as signalling questions. Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approval was required. Patients, healthcare providers and policy makers need the highest quality evidence to make decisions about which treatments should be used in healthcare practice. Being able to critically appraise the findings of systematic reviews that include NMA is central to informed decision-making in patient care.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 06-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-045987
Abstract: Systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA ie, multiple treatment comparisons, indirect comparisons) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA. Such a list will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs which are being updated. We will include articles that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, articles assessing the methodological quality of reviews with NMA, or papers presenting methods for NMAs. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and difficult to locate/unpublished literature. Once all items have been extracted, we will combine conceptually similar items, classifying them as referring to bias or to other aspects of quality (eg, reporting). When relevant, reporting items will be reworded into items related to bias in NMA review conclusions, and then reworded as signalling questions. No ethics approval was required. We plan to publish the full study open access in a peer-reviewed journal, and disseminate the findings via social media (Twitter, Facebook and author affiliated websites). Patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers need the highest quality evidence to make decisions about which treatments should be used in healthcare practice. Being able to critically appraise the findings of systematic reviews that include NMA is central to informed decision-making in patient care.
Publisher: Research Square Platform LLC
Date: 31-08-2022
DOI: 10.21203/RS.3.RS-2010358/V1
Abstract: Introduction: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide estimates of comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The aim of this study is to conduct a methodological review to compile a preliminary list of concepts related to bias in NMAs. Methods and Analysis: We included papers that present items related to bias, reporting, or methodological quality, papers assessing the quality of NMAs, or methods papers. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and unpublished literature. We extracted items related to bias in NMAs. An item was excluded if it was an item related to general systematic review quality or bias, and included in currently available tools such as ROBIS or AMSTAR 2. We reworded items, typically structured as questions, into concepts (i.e. general notions). Results: 181 articles were assessed at full text and 57 were included. Of these articles, 12 were tools, checklists or journal standards, 12 were guidance documents for NMAs, 26 were articles related to bias or methods, and 7 were papers that assessed the quality of NMAs. These studies yielded 99 items of which the majority related to general systematic review quality and biases and were therefore excluded. The items we included were reworded into 22 concepts specific to bias in NMAs. Conclusions: A list of 22 concepts were included. This list is not intended to be used to assess biases in NMAs, but to inform the development of items to be included in our tool.
Publisher: Research Square Platform LLC
Date: 02-10-2023
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Sofia Dias.