Table 1.
Characteristics of NMAs published between 2013 and 2018
| Published in journals endorsing NMA | NMAs published between 2013 and 2015 | NMAs published between 2016 and 2018 | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Total | Yes | No | Total | Yes | No | Total | |
| 88 (23%) | 301 (77%) | 389 | 82 (11%) | 673 (89%) | 755 | 170 (15%) | 974 (85%) | 1144 | |
| Ten most prevalent countries of corresponding author: frequency (%) | |||||||||
| China | 17 (22%) | 60 (78%) | 77 | 21 (8%) | 256 (92%) | 277 | 38 (11%) | 316 (89%) | 354 |
| USA | 17 (22%) | 61 (78%) | 78 | 12 (11%) | 94 (89%) | 106 | 29 (16%) | 155 (84%) | 184 |
| UK | 16 (22%) | 58 (78%) | 74 | 13 (14%) | 77 (86%) | 90 | 29 (18%) | 135 (82%) | 164 |
| Canada | 10 (29%) | 24 (71%) | 34 | 8 (20%) | 32 (80%) | 40 | 18 (24%) | 56 (76%) | 74 |
| Italy | 5 (16%) | 26 (84%) | 31 | 4 (13%) | 28 (88%) | 32 | 9 (14%) | 54 (86%) | 63 |
| Korea (South) | 1 (25%) | 3 (75%) | 4 | 3 (10%) | 28 (90%) | 31 | 4 (11%) | 31 (89%) | 35 |
| Germany | 3 (20%) | 12 (80%) | 15 | 1 (6%) | 16 (94%) | 17 | 4 (13%) | 28 (88%) | 32 |
| France | 2 (20%) | 8 (80%) | 10 | 2 (17%) | 10 (83%) | 12 | 4 (18%) | 18 (82%) | 22 |
| Switzerland | 4 (40%) | 6 (60%) | 10 | 3 (30%) | 7 (70%) | 10 | 7 (35%) | 13 (65%) | 20 |
| Japan | 2 (40%) | 3 (60%) | 5 | 0 (0%) | 15 (100%) | 15 | 2 (10%) | 18 (90%) | 20 |
| Ten most prevalent journals: frequency (%) | |||||||||
| Plos One | 31 (100%) | NA | 31 | 21 (100%) | NA | 21 | 52 (100%) | NA | 52 |
| Oncotarget | NA | 4 (100%) | 4 | NA | 39 (100%) | 39 | NA | 43 (100%) | 43 |
| Medicine | NA | 9 (100%) | 9 | NA | 33 (100%) | 33 | NA | 42 (100%) | 42 |
| Cochrane Database Of Systematic Reviews | NA | 16 (100%) | 16 | NA | 17 (100%) | 17 | NA | 33 (100%) | 33 |
| Scientific Reports | NA | 2 (100%) | 2 | NA | 25 (100%) | 25 | NA | 27 (100%) | 27 |
| Current Medical Research And Opinion | NA | 11 (100%) | 11 | NA | 10 (100%) | 10 | NA | 21 (100%) | 21 |
| BMJ | 16 (100%) | NA | 16 | 5 (100%) | NA | 5 | 21 (100%) | NA | 21 |
| Health Technology Assessment | NA | 8 (100%) | 8 | NA | 11 (100%) | 11 | NA | 19 (100%) | 19 |
| Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics | 8 (100%) | NA | 8 | 10 (100%) | NA | 10 | NA | 18 (100%) | 18 |
| Clinical Therapeutics | NA | 7 (100%) | 7 | NA | 8 (100%) | 8 | NA | 15 (100%) | 15 |
| Type of review: frequency (%) | |||||||||
| Non-Cochrane review without protocol | 70 (23%) | 236 (77%) | 306 | 42 (8%) | 483 (92%) | 525 | 112 (13%) | 719 (87%) | 831 |
| Non-Cochrane review with protocol | 18 (27%) | 49 (73%) | 67 | 40 (19%) | 173 (81%) | 213 | 58 (21%) | 222 (79%) | 280 |
| Cochrane review | 0 (0%) | 16 (100%) | 16 | 0 (0%) | 17 (100%) | 17 | 0 (0%) | 33 (100%) | 33 |
| Type of treatment group: frequency (%) | |||||||||
| Pharmacological vs Placebo | 44 (20%) | 171 (80%) | 215 | 50 (14%) | 315 (86%) | 365 | 94 (16%) | 486 (84%) | 580 |
| Pharmacological vs Pharmacological | 27 (26%) | 77 (74%) | 104 | 16 (7%) | 207 (93%) | 223 | 43 (13%) | 284 (87%) | 327 |
| Non-pharmacological vs Any treatment | 17 (24%) | 53 (76%) | 70 | 16 (10%) | 151 (90%) | 167 | 33 (14%) | 204 (86%) | 237 |
| Shape of network: frequency (%) | |||||||||
| Full shaped with at least one closed loop | 71 (22%) | 245 (78%) | 316 | 69 (11%) | 573 (89%) | 642 | 140 (15%) | 818 (85%) | 958 |
| Open shaped with no closed loops | 17 (24%) | 55 (76%) | 72 | 13 (12%) | 94 (88%) | 107 | 30 (17%) | 149 (83%) | 179 |
| Unclear | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | 1 | 0 (0%) | 6 (100%) | 6 | 0 (0%) | 7 (100%) | 7 |
| Presentation results: frequency (%)a | |||||||||
| Presentation of NMA results | |||||||||
| Ranking statistics | 46 (25%) | 138 (75%) | 363 | 58 (11%) | 494 (89%) | 552 | 104 (14%) | 632 (86%) | 736 |
| Forest plot | 48 (24%) | 149 (76%) | 197 | 60 (12%) | 449 (88%) | 509 | 108 (15%) | 598 (85%) | 706 |
| League tables | 37 (23%) | 124 (77%) | 161 | 48 (10%) | 419 (90%) | 467 | 85 (14%) | 543 (86%) | 628 |
| Analysis setting: frequency (%) | |||||||||
| Bayesian | 67 (24%) | 215 (76%) | 272 | 56 (11%) | 441 (89%) | 497 | 123 (16%) | 656 (84%) | 779 |
| Frequentist | 19 (19%) | 79 (81%) | 98 | 26 (11%) | 209 (89%) | 235 | 45 (14%) | 288 (86%) | 333 |
| Both | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | 1 | 0 (0%) | 21 (100%) | 21 | 0 (0%) | 22 (100%) | 22 |
| Unclear | 2 (25%) | 6 (75%) | 8 | 0 (0%) | 2 (100%) | 2 | 2 (20%) | 8 (80%) | 10 |
| Bayesian analysis settings: frequency (%)a | |||||||||
| Bayesian setting | |||||||||
| Reported prior distributions | 37 (24%) | 117 (76%) | 154 | 22 (12%) | 169 (88%) | 191 | 59 (17%) | 286 (83%) | 345 |
| Model fit assessment | 40 (26%) | 112 (74%) | 152 | 21 (11%) | 169 (89%) | 190 | 61 (18%) | 281 (82%) | 342 |
| Used different priors as additional analyses | 5 (28%) | 13 (72%) | 18 | 4 (24%) | 13 (76%) | 17 | 9 (26%) | 26 (74%) | 35 |
| Additional analyses: frequency (%)a | |||||||||
| Additional NMA analyses | |||||||||
| Subgroup and/or sensitivity analysis | 50 (28%) | 131 (72%) | 181 | 46 (15%) | 266 (85%) | 312 | 96 (19%) | 397 (81%) | 493 |
| Meta-regression | 18 (26%) | 52 (74%) | 70 | 18 (17%) | 87 (83%) | 105 | 36 (21%) | 139 (79%) | 175 |
| Alternative treatment formulations in the network | 13 (42%) | 18 (58%) | 31 | 3 (10%) | 26 (90%) | 29 | 16 (27%) | 44 (73%) | 60 |
| Funding: frequency (%) | |||||||||
| Publicly sponsored | 27 (21%) | 104 (79%) | 131 | 29 (11%) | 238 (89%) | 267 | 56 (14%) | 342 (86%) | 398 |
| Funding source not reported | 8 (9%) | 82 (91%) | 90 | 14 (6%) | 210 (94%) | 224 | 22 (7%) | 292 (93%) | 314 |
| Non-sponsored | 34 (37%) | 59 (63%) | 93 | 26 (15%) | 143 (85%) | 169 | 60 (23%) | 202 (77%) | 262 |
| Industry-sponsored | 16 (24%) | 52 (76%) | 68 | 11 (13%) | 72 (87%) | 83 | 27 (18%) | 124 (82%) | 151 |
| Mixed-funding | 3 (43%) | 4 (57%) | 7 | 2 (17%) | 10 (83%) | 12 | 5 (26%) | 14 (74%) | 19 |
aThe total number of NMAs does not add up to 1144 as each article might pertain to more than one category
NMA network meta-analysis