Network meta-analysis in health psychology and behavioural medicine: a primer

Molloy, Gerard J.; Noone, Chris; Caldwell, Deborah M; Welton, Nicky J

doi:10.1080/17437199.2018.1457449

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study is registered with PROSPERO [21] (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review) (CRD42015023541) and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [22].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Statistical analyses were done in accordance with our registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42015023541) [21]. We conducted meta-analyses according to time point of outcome measurement (≤6 months, 6–12 months, last follow-up) for sexual health outcomes (i.e., percent engaging in condomless sex) and drug risk outcomes (i.e., percent engaging in injection drug risk or other drug risk behaviours).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There has been a growing interest in understanding the effects of social networks on health-related behaviour, with a particular backdrop being the emerging prominence of complexity or systems science in public health. Social network interventions specifically use or alter the characteristics of social networks to generate, accelerate, or maintain health behaviours. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate health behaviour outcomes of social network interventions. Methods and findings We searched eight databases and two trial registries from 1990 to May 28, 2019, for English-language reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and before-and-after studies investigating social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes. Trials that did not specifically use social networks or that did not include a comparator group were excluded. We screened studies and extracted data from published reports independently. The primary outcome of health behaviours or outcomes at ≤6 months was assessed by random-effects meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included those measures at >6–12 months and >12 months. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO: CRD42015023541. We identified 26,503 reports; after exclusion, 37 studies, conducted between 1996 and 2018 from 11 countries, were eligible for analysis, with a total of 53,891 participants (mean age 32.4 years [SD 12.7]; 45.5% females). A range of study designs were included: 27 used RCT/cluster RCT designs, and 10 used other study designs. Eligible studies addressed a variety of health outcomes, in particular sexual health and substance use. Social network interventions showed a significant intervention effect compared with comparator groups for sexual health outcomes. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.11; I 2 = 76%) for sexual health outcomes at ≤6 months and OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.27–1.81; I 2 = 40%) for sexual health outcomes at >6–12 months. Intervention effects for drug risk outcomes at each time point were not significant. There were also significant intervention effects for some other health outcomes including alcohol misuse, well-being, change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and smoking cessation. Because of clinical and measurement heterogeneity, it was not appropriate to pool data on these other behaviours in a meta-analysis. For sexual health outcomes, prespecified subgroup analyses were significant for intervention approach ( p < 0.001), mean age of participants ( p = 0.002), and intervention length ( p = 0.05). Overall, 22 of the 37 studies demonstrated a high risk of bias, as measured by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; difficulty in isolating the effects of specific...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of pairwise meta-analysis that is increasingly used in health research [ 15 , 16 ]. It enables the simultaneous comparison of multiple intervention strategies and their ranking according to their relative effects [ 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work-related interventions for preventing back pain—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Back pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context. Methods We will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach. Discussion This systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42021232469

show abstract

“…As NMA allows the comparison and ranking of multiple treatment strategies simultaneously, it is ideal to inform clinical decision‐making in circumstances where a choice needs to be made among multiple interventions 2 . Over the last two decades, the developments of NMA methodologies and relevant software packages 3,4 have further increased the popularity of NMA in a variety of disciplines 5–9 . Reporting guidelines for NMA have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating NMA 10 and the latest Cochrane handbook edition includes a chapter on conducting NMA 11 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta‐analyses—A scoping review

Wang

Dwan

Showell

et al. 2021

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publishing systematic review protocols is a fundamental part of systematic reviews to ensure transparency and reproducibility. In this scoping review, we aimed to evaluate reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta‐analyses (NMA). We searched all Cochrane NMA protocols published in 2018 and 2019, and assessed the characteristics and reporting of methodologies relevant to NMA. We reported frequencies for each reporting item. Forty‐five protocols were assessed, including two for overviews and 43 for intervention reviews. Thirty‐three (73%) were labelled as NMA protocols in the title. Forty‐two (95%) justified the need of an NMA and 40 (89%) used appropriate search strategies to identify potential eligible studies. About half (24, 53%) considered the transitivity assumption when reporting inclusion criteria and 35 (78%) specified potential effect modifiers. Forty‐three (96%) reported statistical software for NMA, 25 (56%) reported NMA model choice, 32 (71%) reported framework choice and 32 (71%) reported assumption about heterogeneity variances. Protocols varied in whether they reported methods for relative ranking (35, 78%), statistical inconsistency (40, 89%), reporting bias (44, 98%) and sources of heterogeneity (39, 87%). In conclusion, Cochrane NMA protocols reported multiple NMA‐specific items well, but could be further improved, especially regarding transitivity assumptions. Our recommendations for NMA protocol reporting based on this scoping review could assist authors, reviewers, and editors to improve NMA protocols.

show abstract

Network meta-analysis in health psychology and behavioural medicine: a primer

Cited by 18 publications

References 87 publications

Social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Work-related interventions for preventing back pain—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta‐analyses—A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About