Advertisement

Network meta-analysis: What is its purpose in Orthopaedic literature?

      Abstract

      Systematic reviews, of level-I primary literature, are the gold standard for the formation of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Orthopaedic Surgery. When systematic reviews have multiple groups of data, meta-analyses can be conducted to analyse the direct comparison of the data points (pairwise meta-analysis). Over recent years, statisticians have created a new statistical model called network meta-analyses that can be applied to systematic reviews. network meta-analyses allow for comparison of different treatment outcomes that may or may not have been directly assessed through level-I primary studies. network meta-analyses are appearing more and more in Orthopaedic Surgery literature; therefore, in this article, we discuss what a Network Meta-analysis is and its application in Orthopaedics.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Injury
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • PRISMA Group
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000097https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
      1. AAOS Bulletin - April 2005. Accessed May 20, 2021. http://www2.aaos.org/bulletin/apr05/fline9.asp.

      2. Quality programs & guidelines (CPGs). Accessed May 20, 2021. https://www.aaos.org/quality/quality-programs/.

        • Livingston E.H.
        • Elliot A.
        • Hynan L.
        • Cao J.
        Effect size estimation: a necessary component of statistical analysis.
        Arch Surg. 2009; 144: 706-712https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2009.150
        • Haidich A.B.
        Meta-analysis in medical research.
        Hippokratia. 2010; 14: 29-37
        • Murad M.H.
        • Montori V.M.
        Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence.
        JAMA. 2013; 309: 2217-2218https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.5616
        • Rouse B.
        • Chaimani A.
        • Li T.
        Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians.
        Intern Emerg Med. 2017; 12: 103-111https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7
        • Li T.
        • Puhan M.A.
        • Vedula S.S.
        • Singh S.
        • Dickersin K.
        Ad hoc network meta-analysis methods meeting working group. network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed.
        BMC Med. 2011; 9: 79https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-79
        • Slim K.
        • Nini E.
        • Forestier D.
        • Kwiatkowski F.
        • Panis Y.
        • Chipponi J.
        Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.
        ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73: 712-716https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x
        • Coleman B.D.
        • Khan K.M.
        • Maffulli N.
        • Cook J.L.
        • Wark J.D.
        Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies.
        Scand J Med Sci Sports: Rev Articl. 2000; 10: 2-11
        • Shea B.J.
        • Reeves B.C.
        • Wells G.
        • et al.
        AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.
        BMJ. 2017; 358: j4008https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
        • Salanti G.
        Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool.
        Res Synth Methods. 2012; 3: 80-97https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1037
        • Salanti G.
        • Ades A.E.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 163-171https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
        • Foote C.J.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Vignesh K.N.
        • et al.
        Which surgical treatment for open tibial shaft fractures results in the fewest reoperations? A network meta-analysis.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473: 2179-2192https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4224-y
      3. Leopold SS. Editorial: “Pencil and Paper” Research? Network Meta-analysis and Other Study Designs That Do Not Enroll Patients.
        Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2015; 473: 2163-2165https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4329-3
        • Jacobs J.J.
        • Mont M.A.
        • Bozic K.J.
        • et al.
        American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on: preventing venous thromboembolic disease in patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 746-747https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.9408.ebo746
        • Jevsevar D.S.
        • Jones D.L.
        • Matzkin E.G.
        • Manner P.A.
        • Mooar P.
        • Schousboe J.T.
        American academy of orthopaedic surgeons. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence based guideline 2nd edition.
        JBJS. 2013; 95: 1885-1886
        • Foote C.J.
        • Chaudhry H.
        • Bhandari M.
        • et al.
        Network Meta-analysis: users’ guide for surgeons: part I - credibility.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473: 2166-2171https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4286-x
        • Chaudhry H.
        • Foote C.J.
        • Guyatt G.
        • et al.
        Network Meta-analysis: users’ guide for surgeons: part II - certainty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473: 2172-2178https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4287-9
        • Campbell A.J.
        • Bagley A.
        • Van Heest A.
        • James M.A.
        Challenges of randomized controlled surgical trials.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 2010; 41: 145-155https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.11.001
        • Bhandari M.
        • Richards R.R.
        • Sprague S.
        • Schemitsch E.H.
        The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the journal of bone and joint surgery from 1988 through 2000.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84: 388-396https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200203000-00009
        • Poolman R.W.
        • Struijs P.A.A.
        • Krips R.
        • et al.
        Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter?.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 550-558https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00683
        • Mundi R.
        • Chaudhry H.
        • Mundi S.
        • Godin K.
        • Bhandari M.
        Design and execution of clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery.
        Bone Joint Res. 2014; 3: 161-168https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.35.2000280
        • Chopra S.S.
        MSJAMA: industry funding of clinical trials: benefit or bias?.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 113-114https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.1.113
        • Zuckerman J.D.
        • Prasarn M.
        • Kubiak E.N.
        • Koval K.J.
        Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 423-428https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200402000-00030
        • Medicine Evidence-Based
        What and where is the evidence? in: becoming a consummate clinician.
        John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012: 131-144https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118380697.ch8
        • Wright J.G.
        • Swiontkowski M.F.
        • Heckman J.D.
        Introducing levels of evidence to the journal.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 1-3
        • Marx R.G.
        • Wilson S.M.
        • Swiontkowski M.F.
        Updating the assignment of levels of evidence.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1-2https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01112
        • White I.R.
        Network meta-analysis.
        Stata J. 2015; 15: 951-985https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1501500403
        • Checketts J.X.
        • Sims M.T.
        • Detweiler B.
        • Middlemist K.
        • Jones J.
        • Vassar M.
        An evaluation of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registry requirements among orthopaedic surgery journals.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100: e15https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.00529
        • Chen X.
        • Zhai X.
        • Wang X.
        • Su J.
        • Li M.
        Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012.
        Eur Spine J. 2014; 23: 1606-1611https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3283-1
        • Montané E.
        • Vallano A.
        • Vidal X.
        • Aguilera C.
        • Laporte J.R.
        Reporting randomised clinical trials of analgesics after traumatic or orthopaedic surgery is inadequate: a systematic review.
        BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 10: 2https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6904-10-2
        • Gummesson C.
        • Atroshi I.
        • Ekdahl C.
        The quality of reporting and outcome measures in randomized clinical trials related to upper-extremity disorders.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2004; 29 (discussion 735-737): 727-734https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.04.003
        • Chess L.E.
        • Gagnier J.
        Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials published in orthopaedic journals.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 76https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-76
        • Dodwell E.
        • Dua S.
        • Dulai S.K.
        • Astone K.
        • Mulpuri K.
        The quality of randomized controlled trials in pediatric Orthopaedics: are we improving?.
        J Pediatr Orthop. 2015; 35: 536-545https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000324
        • Chan S.
        • Bhandari M.
        The quality of reporting of Orthopaedic randomized trials with use of a checklist for nonpharmacological therapies.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 1970-1978https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01591
        • Schmucker C.
        • Schell L.K.
        • Portalupi S.
        • et al.
        Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries.
        PLoS ONE. 2014; 9e114023https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114023
        • Chan A.W.
        • Song F.
        • Vickers A.
        • et al.
        Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.
        Lancet. 2014; 383: 257-266https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5
        • Hasenboehler E.A.
        • Choudhry I.K.
        • Newman J.T.
        • Smith W.R.
        • Ziran B.H.
        • Stahel P.F.
        Bias towards publishing positive results in orthopedic and general surgery: a patient safety issue?.
        Patient Saf Surg. 2007; 1: 4https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-1-4
        • Scott J.
        • Checketts J.X.
        • Cooper C.M.
        • Boose M.
        • Wayant C.
        • Vassar M.
        An evaluation of publication bias in high-impact orthopaedic literature.
        JBJS Open Access. 2019; 4: e0055https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00055
        • Reddy A.K.
        • Anderson J.M.
        • Gray H.M.
        • Fishbeck K.
        • Vassar M.
        Clinical trial registry use in orthopaedic surgery systematic reviews.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021; 103: e41https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01743
        • Swiontkowski M.
        Meta-analyses and systematic reviews: JBJS policy revisited.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021; 103: 849https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.21.00233
        • Reddy A.K.
        • Scott J.T.
        • Checketts J.X.
        • Norris B.L.
        The state of publication bias in orthopaedic surgery systematic reviews- what are steps to minimization.
        Injury. 2022; 53: 213-214https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.11.042