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 accessOne-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 InjuryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000097https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
AAOS Bulletin - April 2005. Accessed May 20, 2021. http://www2.aaos.org/bulletin/apr05/fline9.asp.
Quality programs & guidelines (CPGs). Accessed May 20, 2021. https://www.aaos.org/quality/quality-programs/.
- Effect size estimation: a necessary component of statistical analysis.Arch Surg. 2009; 144: 706-712https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2009.150
- Meta-analysis in medical research.Hippokratia. 2010; 14: 29-37
- 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
- Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians.Intern Emerg Med. 2017; 12: 103-111https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- American academy of orthopaedic surgeons. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence based guideline 2nd edition.JBJS. 2013; 95: 1885-1886
- 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
- 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
- Challenges of randomized controlled surgical trials.Orthop Clin North Am. 2010; 41: 145-155https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.11.001
- 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
- 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
- Design and execution of clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery.Bone Joint Res. 2014; 3: 161-168https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.35.2000280
- MSJAMA: industry funding of clinical trials: benefit or bias?.JAMA. 2003; 290: 113-114https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.1.113
- Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 423-428https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200402000-00030
- What and where is the evidence? in: becoming a consummate clinician.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012: 131-144https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118380697.ch8
- Introducing levels of evidence to the journal.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 1-3
- Updating the assignment of levels of evidence.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1-2https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01112
- Network meta-analysis.Stata J. 2015; 15: 951-985https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1501500403
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.Lancet. 2014; 383: 257-266https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5
- 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
- An evaluation of publication bias in high-impact orthopaedic literature.JBJS Open Access. 2019; 4: e0055https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00055
- Clinical trial registry use in orthopaedic surgery systematic reviews.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021; 103: e41https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01743
- Meta-analyses and systematic reviews: JBJS policy revisited.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021; 103: 849https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.21.00233
- 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
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 21, 2022
Accepted:
June 20,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
☆This paper is part of a supplement supported by AOTrauma Europe.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
