The impact of Cochrane Reviews that apply network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines: A systematic review

Sarah Donegan, James Connor, Zarko Alfirevic and Catrin Tudur-Smith

PLOS ONE, 2024, vol. 19, issue 12, 1-20

Abstract: Background: Systematic reviews, such as those prepared by Cochrane, are the strongest evidence on which to base recommendations in clinical guidelines. Network meta-analysis (NMA) can be used to combine the results of studies to compare multiple treatments, which is advantageous over pair-wise meta-analysis (PW-MA) that compares two treatments. We aimed to summarise which, when, where, who, and why Cochrane Reviews that applied NMA were cited in guidelines; and to compare the citation of NMA reviews in guidelines with PW-MA reviews. Methods and findings: We carried out a systematic review of Cochrane reviews that applied NMA and we summarised their citation in guidelines. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (15th January 2024). Additionally, a cohort of Cochrane reviews that applied PW-MA was matched to the NMA reviews. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data. We summarised review and guideline characteristics, and the use of the review in guidelines. Results: Of the 60 included NMA reviews, 26 reviews (43%) were cited in 89 guidelines (1–13 per review). 15 NMA reviews (58%) were first cited within two years of publication, with the remaining 11 reviews (42%) cited 2–6 years later. 52 guideline developers authored the guidelines. The number of citations was higher for NMA than PW-MA reviews (rate ratio 1.53 (1.08 to 2.19), p = 0.02). The number of times reviews were commissioned or cited alongside a recommendation was also higher for NMA than PW-MA reviews (rate ratio 4.40 (1.80 to 13.14), p = 0.003). NMA reviews were more likely to be cited in the text surrounding a recommendation or used for NICE guideline development (1.94 (1.08 to 3.63), p = 0.03). Conclusions: Cochrane NMA reviews appear to have more impact than PW-MA reviews, but many are not cited in guidelines. Further work is needed to explore the barriers to use of NMAs and promote their use.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315563 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 15563&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0315563

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315563

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().