Author
Anna Chaimani
Other affiliations: Cochrane Collaboration, Paris Descartes University, University of Ioannina ...read more
Bio: Anna Chaimani is an academic researcher from University of Paris. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Meta-analysis. The author has an hindex of 35, co-authored 93 publications receiving 8649 citations. Previous affiliations of Anna Chaimani include Cochrane Collaboration & Paris Descartes University.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: The process of developing specific advice for the reporting of systematic reviews that incorporate network meta-analyses is described, and the guidance generated from this process is presented.
Abstract: The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses.
3,932 citations
University of Oxford1, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust2, Kyoto University3, University of Bern4, Paris Descartes University5, Sorbonne6, Cochrane Collaboration7, Warneford Hospital8, Technische Universität München9, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre10, Oregon Health & Science University11, University of Bristol12, Stanford University13
TL;DR: This work aimed to update and expand previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder, and found that all antidepressants were more effective than placebo.
1,697 citations
TL;DR: This paper provides a set of STATA routines that can be easily employed to present the evidence base, evaluate the assumptions, fit the network meta-analysis model and interpret its results.
Abstract: Network meta-analysis synthesizes direct and indirect evidence in a network of trials that compare multiple interventions and has the potential to rank the competing treatments according to the studied outcome. Despite its usefulness network meta-analysis is often criticized for its complexity and for being accessible only to researchers with strong statistical and computational skills. The evaluation of the underlying model assumptions, the statistical technicalities and presentation of the results in a concise and understandable way are all challenging aspects in the network meta-analysis methodology. In this paper we aim to make the methodology accessible to non-statisticians by presenting and explaining a series of graphical tools via worked examples. To this end, we provide a set of STATA routines that can be easily employed to present the evidence base, evaluate the assumptions, fit the network meta-analysis model and interpret its results.
1,575 citations
TL;DR: An approach to determining confidence in the output of a network meta-analysis is proposed based on methodology developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group for pairwise meta-analyses and applied to a systematic review comparing topical antibiotics without steroids for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations.
Abstract: Systematic reviews that collate data about the relative effects of multiple interventions via network meta-analysis are highly informative for decision-making purposes. A network meta-analysis provides two types of findings for a specific outcome: the relative treatment effect for all pairwise comparisons, and a ranking of the treatments. It is important to consider the confidence with which these two types of results can enable clinicians, policy makers and patients to make informed decisions. We propose an approach to determining confidence in the output of a network meta-analysis. Our proposed approach is based on methodology developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group for pairwise meta-analyses. The suggested framework for evaluating a network meta-analysis acknowledges (i) the key role of indirect comparisons (ii) the contributions of each piece of direct evidence to the network meta-analysis estimates of effect size; (iii) the importance of the transitivity assumption to the validity of network meta-analysis; and (iv) the possibility of disagreement between direct evidence and indirect evidence. We apply our proposed strategy to a systematic review comparing topical antibiotics without steroids for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations. The proposed framework can be used to determine confidence in the results from a network meta-analysis. Judgements about evidence from a network meta-analysis can be different from those made about evidence from pairwise meta-analyses.
853 citations
TL;DR: A methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared is presented, which improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process.
Abstract: BACKGROUND
The evaluation of the credibility of results from a meta-analysis has become an important part of the evidence synthesis process. We present a methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared.
METHODOLOGY
CINeMA considers 6 domains: (i) within-study bias, (ii) reporting bias, (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, (v) heterogeneity, and (vi) incoherence. Key to judgments about within-study bias and indirectness is the percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much information each study contributes to the results from network meta-analysis. The contribution matrix can easily be computed using a freely available web application. In evaluating imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence, we consider the impact of these components of variability in forming clinical decisions.
CONCLUSIONS
Via 3 examples, we show that CINeMA improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process. CINeMA is easy to apply even in large and complicated networks.
464 citations
Cited by
More filters
Book•
23 Sep 2019TL;DR: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
21,235 citations
Monash University1, University of Amsterdam2, University of Paris3, Bond University4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, University of Ottawa6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, Johns Hopkins University12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement as discussed by the authors was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
16,613 citations
University of Toronto1, St. Michael's Hospital2, Northeastern University3, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute4, University of South Australia5, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada6, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health7, RAND Corporation8, American University of Beirut9, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality10, University of Ottawa11, University of York12, University of Alberta13, McMaster University14, South African Medical Research Council15, Queen's University16, Dalhousie University17, World Health Organization18, Cochrane Collaboration19, King's College London20
TL;DR: A PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was needed to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis and was developed according to published guidance by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research) Network for the development of reporting guidelines.
Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
11,709 citations
TL;DR: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
Abstract: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee
5,739 citations
TL;DR: The Statistical Update represents the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and the cardiovascular risk factors listed in the AHA's My Life Check - Life’s Simple 7, which include core health behaviors and health factors that contribute to cardiovascular health.
Abstract: Each chapter listed in the Table of Contents (see next page) is a hyperlink to that chapter. The reader clicks the chapter name to access that chapter.
Each chapter listed here is a hyperlink. Click on the chapter name to be taken to that chapter.
Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together in a single document the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and the cardiovascular risk factors listed in the AHA’s My Life Check - Life’s Simple 7 (Figure1), which include core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure [BP], and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update represents …
5,102 citations