Deficiencies in addressing effect modification in network meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological survey

ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to evaluate the current state of reporting and handling of effect modification in network meta-analyses (NMAs) and perform exploratory analyses to identify variables that are potentially associated with incomplete reporting of effect modifiers in NMAs.Study Design and SettingWe conducted a meta-epidemiological survey using a systematic review of NMAs published in 2013 and identified through MEDLINE and Embase databases.ResultsThe review identified 77 NMAs. The most common type of effect modifiers identified and explored were patient characteristics (50.7% or 39/77), and the most common adjustment method used was sensitivity analysis (51.7% or 30/58). Over 45% (35/77) of studies did not describe a plan, nearly 40% (30/77) did not report the results of analyses, and approximately 47% (36/77) of studies had incomplete reporting. Exploratory univariate regression analyses yielded a statistically significant association for the variables of journal impact factor, ratio of randomized controlled trials to number of comparisons, and total number of randomized controlled trials.ConclusionCurrent reporting practices are largely deficient, given that almost half of identified published NMAs do not explore or report effect modification. Journal impact factor and amount of available information in a network were associated with completeness of reporting.