Table 1.
Results of the 19 contracting companies that indicated that they perform network meta-analysis
| Company | Start date of first NMA | NMAs completed | NMAs published | NMA conducted/year | NMA published/year | Ratio published/conducted | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mapi Group (incl. Health Technology Analysts and Optum) | Nov-05 | 88 | 33 | 9.5 | 3.6 | 0.38 |
| 2 | Abacus International/Decision Research Group | Jun-07 | 54 | 10 | 7.0 | 1.3 | 0.19 |
| 3 | Redwood Outcomes (now part of Precision Health Economics) | Sept-13 | 51 | 5 | 36 | 3.5 | 0.10 |
| 4 | Evidera/UBCc | Nov-08 | 50 | 3 | 8.0 | 0.48 | 0.06 |
| 5 | Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltdc | Jan-08 | 20 | 14 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.70 |
| 6 | Amaris | Jan-12 | 15 | 1 | 4.9 | 0.32 | 0.07 |
| 7 | Symmetron Ltd | Nov-08 | 13 | 2 | 2.1 | 0.32 | 0.15 |
| 8 | RTI Health Solutions | Jun-00 | 12 | 13 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 1.08 |
| 9 | Medignition Inc. | Aug-08 | 6 | 6 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 1.00 |
| 10 | Augmentium Pharma Consulting | Jan-05 | 5 | 4 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.80 |
| 11 | AHEAD | Jun-10 | 2 | 2 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 1.00 |
| 12 | Xintera Consulting | Jan-09 | 2 | 2 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 1.00 |
| 13 | CEMKA-EVAL | May-12 | 2 | 0 | 0.73 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 14 | McMDC Ltd | Sep-09 | 2 | 1 | 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.50 |
| 15 | Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia | Jan-10 | 2 | 1 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.50 |
| 16 | BeSyRe Bekkering Systematic Reviews | May-10 | 1 | 1 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 1.00 |
| 17 | David Hoaglin (consulting statistician) | Jan-09 | 1 | 1 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 1.00 |
| 18 | Company 1c | NP | NP | NP | NP | NP | 0.04 |
| 19 | Company 2c | NP | NP | NPa | NP | NP | 0.08 |
| Total | – | 476b | 106b | 6.6 | 1.5 | 0.22 |
Companies are sorted based on the number of network meta-analyses (NMA) conducted
NP not presented due to confidentiality
aSince no list of references was available from Company 2, we used the number of papers identified by our literature search
bMeta-analyses conducted or published by more than one contracting company are double-counted, but these are uncommon. The sum of 106 for published network meta-analyses corresponds to 102 papers, because four meta-analyses were co-authored by two contracting companies. The exact level of redundancy for conducted meta-analyses is not correct, but is likely to be similarly low
cThese companies gave an approximation for the number of conducted network meta-analyses. For calculations the approximation was considered as the actual number of network meta-analyses