Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for severe agitation in real-world emergency settings: protocol of individual-participant-data network meta-analysis.
Aggression
Agitation
Effectiveness
Emergency
Individual-participant data
Network meta-analysis
Psychosis
Systematic review
Tranquilization
Violence
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Aug 2024
02 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
03
11
2023
accepted:
20
07
2024
medline:
3
8
2024
pubmed:
3
8
2024
entrez:
2
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision. We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments. PROSPERO CRD42023402365.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision.
METHODS
METHODS
We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
PROSPERO CRD42023402365.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39095865
doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02623-z
pii: 10.1186/s13643-024-02623-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antipsychotic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
205Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 01KG2208
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
APA. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5, vol. 5. DC: American psychiatric association Washington; 2013.
Garriga M, Pacchiarotti I, Kasper S, Zeller SL, Allen MH, Vázquez G, Baldaçara L, San L, McAllister-Williams RH, Fountoulakis KN, et al. Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: expert consensus. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2016;17(2):86–128.
pubmed: 26912127
doi: 10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007
Roppolo LP, Morris DW, Khan F, Downs R, Metzger J, Carder T, Wong AH, Wilson MP. Improving the management of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department through implementation of Project BETA (best practices in the evaluation and treatment of agitation). J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020;1(5):898–907.
pubmed: 33145538
pmcid: 7593430
doi: 10.1002/emp2.12138
DGPPN: S3-Leitlinie Schizophrenie. In: In. Edited by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie PuNeVD. 2019.
Pajonk F-G, Messer T, Berzewski H. In: S2k-Leitlinie Notfallpsychiatrie: Springer. 2020.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-61174-6
National Collaborating Centre for Mental H. In: Violence and aggression: short-term management in mental health, health and community settings. 2015.
Baldaçara L, Diaz AP, Leite P, Pereira LA, Dos Santos RM, Gomes VdP, Calfat EL, Ismael F, Périco CA, Porto DM. Brazilian guidelines for the management of psychomotor agitation. Part 2. Pharmacological approach. Braz J Psychiatry. 2019;41:324–35.
pubmed: 30843960
pmcid: 6804299
doi: 10.1590/1516-4446-2018-0177
Brown MD, Byyny R, Diercks DB, Gemme SR, Gerardo CJ, Godwin SA, Hahn SA, Hatten BW, Haukoos JS, Ingalsbe GS. Clinical policy: critical issues in the diagnosis and management of the adult psychiatric patient in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(4):480–98.
pubmed: 28335913
doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.036
Galletly C, Castle D, Dark F, Humberstone V, Jablensky A, Killackey E, Kulkarni J, McGorry P, Nielssen O, Tran N. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the management of schizophrenia and related disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50(5):410–72.
pubmed: 27106681
doi: 10.1177/0004867416641195
TREC Collaborative Group. Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):708–13.
pmcid: 200800
doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.708
Alexander J, Tharyan P, Adams C, John T, Mol C, Philip J. Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v haloperidol plus promethazine. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;185:63–9.
pubmed: 15231557
doi: 10.1192/bjp.185.1.63
Raveendran NS, Tharyan P, Alexander J, Adams CE. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. BMJ. 2007;335(7625):865.
pubmed: 17954514
pmcid: 2043469
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39341.608519.BE
Huf G, Coutinho ES, Adams CE. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. BMJ. 2007;335(7625):869.
pubmed: 17954515
pmcid: 2043463
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39339.448819.AE
Dib JE, Yaacoub HE, Ikdais WH, Atallah E, Merheb TJ, Ajaltouni J, Akkari M, Mourad M, Nasr ME, Hachem D, et al. Rapid tranquillisation in a psychiatric emergency hospital in Lebanon: TREC-Lebanon - a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol and promethazine v intramuscular haloperidol, promethazine and chlorpromazine. Psychol Med. 2022;52(13):2751–9.
pubmed: 33402230
doi: 10.1017/S0033291720004869
Mantovani C, Labate Cm Fau - Sponholz A, Jr., Sponholz A Jr Fau - de Azevedo Marques JM, de Azevedo Marques Jm Fau - Guapo VG, Guapo Vg Fau - de Simone Brito dos Santos ME, de Simone Brito dos Santos Me Fau - Pazin-Filho A, Pazin-Filho A Fau - Del-Ben CM, Del-Ben CM: Are low doses of antipsychotics effective in the management of psychomotor agitation? A randomized, rated-blind trial of 4 intramuscular interventions. 2013(1533–712X (Electronic)).
Knott JC, Taylor DM, Castle DJ. Randomized clinical trial comparing intravenous midazolam and droperidol for sedation of the acutely agitated patient in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47(1):61-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.07.003 .
Chan EW, Lao KSJ, Lam L, Tsui SH, Lui CT, Wong CP, Graham CA, Cheng CH, Chung TS, Lam HF, Ting SM, Knott JC, Taylor DM, Kong DCM, Leung LP, Wong ICK. Intramuscular midazolam, olanzapine, or haloperidol for the management of acute agitation: A multi-centre, double-blind, randomised clinical trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;32:100751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100751 .
Bak M, Weltens I, Bervoets C, De Fruyt J, Samochowiec J, Fiorillo A, Sampogna G, Bienkowski P, Preuss WU, Misiak B, Frydecka D, Samochowiec A, Bak E, Drukker M, Dom G, The pharmacological management of agitated and aggressive behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Psychiatry. 2019;57:78-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2019.01.014 .
Ostinelli EG, Brooke-Powney MJ, Li X, Adams CE. Haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7(7):Cd009377.
pubmed: 28758203
Zaman H, Sampson SJ, Beck ALS, Sharma T, Clay FJ, Spyridi S, Zhao S, Gillies D. Benzodiazepines for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;12(12):CD003079.
pubmed: 29219171
Uribe ES, Bravo-Rodríguez CA, Navarrete-Juárez ME, Medrano-Juarez SB, Lucio RH, Rojas-Guzman KE, Lozano-Carrillo LC: Pharmacological management of acute agitation in psychiatric patients: an umbrella review. 2024.
Muir-Cochrane E, Grimmer K, Gerace A, Bastiampillai T, Oster C, Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine and droperidol for chemical restraint for non-consenting adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Australas Emerg Care. 2021;24(2):96-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2020.08.004 .
deSouza IS, Thode HC Jr, Shrestha P, Allen R, Koos J, Singer AJ. Rapid tranquilization of the agitated patient in the emergency department: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2022;51:363–73.
pubmed: 34823192
doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.11.011
Riley RD, Dias S, Donegan S, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Efthimiou O, Phillippo DM: Using individual participant data to improve network meta-analysis projects. BMJ Evid Based Med 2022.
Kanters S, Karim ME, Thorlund K, Anis A, Bansback N. When does the use of individual patient data in network meta-analysis make a difference? A simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01198-2 .
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ : British Medical Journal. 2015;349:g7647.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647
Dickert NW, Sugarman J. Ethics and regulatory barriers to research in emergency settings. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(4):386–8.
pubmed: 30031559
doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.05.025
Paris G, Bighelli I, Deste G, Siafis S, Schneider-Thoma J, Zhu Y, Davis JM, Vita A, Leucht S. Short-acting intramuscular second-generation antipsychotic drugs for acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Schizophr Res. 2021;229:3–11.
pubmed: 33607608
doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2021.01.021
Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Li T, Higgins JPT, Salanti G: Undertaking network meta‐analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019:285-320.
Gerson R, Malas N, Feuer V, Silver GH, Prasad R, Mroczkowski. Best Practices for Evaluation and Treatment of Agitated Children and Adolescents (BETA) in the Emergency Department: Consensus Statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry. West J Emerg Med. 2019;20(2):409-18. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2019.1.41344 .
Richards JR, Derlet RW, Duncan DR. Chemical restraint for the agitated patient in the emergency department: lorazepam versus droperidol. J Emerg Med. 1998;16(4):567–73.
pubmed: 9696171
doi: 10.1016/S0736-4679(98)00045-6
Calver LA, Stokes B, Isbister GK. Sedation assessment tool to score acute behavioural disturbance in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas. 2011;23(6):732–40.
pubmed: 22151672
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01484.x
Furukawa TA, Akechi T, Wagenpfeil S, Leucht S. Relative indices of treatment effect may be constant across different definitions of response in schizophrenia trials. Schizophr Res. 2011;126(1–3):212–9.
pubmed: 21062670
doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.10.016
Montoya A, Valladares A, Lizán L, San L, Escobar R, Paz S. Validation of the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-EC) in a naturalistic sample of 278 patients with acute psychosis and agitation in a psychiatric emergency room. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:18.
pubmed: 21447155
pmcid: 3078838
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-18
Yudofsky SC, Silver JM, Jackson W, Endicott J, Williams D. The Overt Aggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and physical aggression. Am J Psychiatry. 1986;143:35–9.
pubmed: 3942284
doi: 10.1176/ajp.143.1.35
Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf. 1999;20(2):109–17.
pubmed: 10082069
doi: 10.2165/00002018-199920020-00002
Simpson GM, Angus JWS. A rating scale for extrapyramidal side effects. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1970;45(S212):11–9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1970.tb02066.x
Barnes TRE. A rating scale for drug-induced akathisia. Br J Psychiatry. 1989;154(5):672–6.
pubmed: 2574607
doi: 10.1192/bjp.154.5.672
Bhuiyan PS, Rege NN: ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical practice. 1996.
Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JPT, Curtin F, Worthington HV, Vail A. Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):140–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.140 .
Donner A, Piaggio G, Villar J. Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of cluster randomization trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10(5):325–38.
pubmed: 11697225
doi: 10.1177/096228020101000502
Veroniki AA, Ashoor HM, Le SPC, Rios P, Stewart LA, Clarke M, Mavridis D, Straus SE, Tricco AC. Retrieval of individual patient data depended on study characteristics: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:176–88.
pubmed: 31153977
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.031
Brunoni AR, Tadini L, Fregni F. Changes in clinical trials methodology over time: a systematic review of six decades of research in psychopharmacology. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(3):e9479.
pubmed: 20209133
pmcid: 2831060
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009479
Weeks J, Cuthbert A, Alfirevic Z. Trustworthiness assessment as an inclusion criterion for systematic reviews—what is the impact on results? Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods. 2023;1(10):e12037.
doi: 10.1002/cesm.12037
Weibel S, Popp M, Reis S, Skoetz N, Garner P, Sydenham E. Identifying and managing problematic trials: a research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis. Res Synth Methods. 2023;14(3):357–69.
pubmed: 36054583
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1599
Kataoka Y, Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Ariie T, Taito S, Suzuki T, Oide S, Furukawa TA. Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;150:90–7.
pubmed: 35779825
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.015
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB, Blunt H, Brigham T, Chang S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
pubmed: 31462531
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
Wieland LS, Berman BM, Altman DG, Barth J, Bouter LM, D’Adamo CR, Linde K, Moher D, Mullins CD, Treweek S, et al. Rating of included trials on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum: development of a new tool for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:95–104.
pubmed: 28188898
pmcid: 5441969
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.010
Doi SA, Furuya-Kanamori L, Xu C, Lin L, Chivese T, Thalib L: Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: a call for change to practice. J Clin Epidemiol 2020.
Bakbergenuly I, Hoaglin DC, Kulinskaya E. Pitfalls of using the risk ratio in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):398-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1347 .
Leucht S, Siafis S, Engel RR, Schneider-Thoma J, Bighelli I, Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Davis JM. How efficacious are antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia? An interpretation based on 13 effect size indices. Schizophr Bull. 2022;48(1):27–36.
pubmed: 34405881
doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbab094
Salanti G, Nikolakopoulou A, Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Egger M, White IR. Introducing the treatment hierarchy question in network meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(5):930–8.
pubmed: 35146500
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab278
Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163–71.
pubmed: 20688472
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
Donegan S, Williamson P, D’Alessandro U, Garner P, Smith CT. Combining individual patient data and aggregate data in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: individual patient data may be beneficial if only for a subset of trials. Stat Med. 2013;32(6):914–30.
pubmed: 22987606
doi: 10.1002/sim.5584
Hamza T, Chalkou K, Pellegrini F, Kuhle J, Benkert P, Lorscheider J, Zecca C, Iglesias-Urrutia CP, Manca A, Furukawa TA, et al. Synthesizing cross-design evidence and cross-format data using network meta-regression. Res Synth Methods. 2023;14:283–300.
pubmed: 36625736
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1619
Hamza T, Schwarzer G, Salanti G: crossnma: cross-design and cross-format synthesis using network meta-analysis and network meta-regression. In.; 2022.
Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, Chaimani A, Del Giovane C, Egger M, Salanti G. CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 2020;17(4):e1003082.
Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–67.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Azur MJ, Stuart EA, Frangakis C, Leaf PJ. Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2011;20(1):40–9.
pubmed: 21499542
pmcid: 3074241
doi: 10.1002/mpr.329
Rubin DB: Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys, vol. 81: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
Saramago P, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Manca A. Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data. Stat Med. 2012;31(28):3516-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5442 .
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Nikolakopoulou A, Papakonstantinou T, Salanti G, Efthimiou O, Schwarzer G. netmeta: an R package for network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. J Stat Softw. 2023;106(2):1–40.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v106.i02
Rücker G: Network meta-analysis, electrical networks and graph theory. 2012(1759–2879 (Print)).
König J, Krahn U, Binder H. Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta-analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2013;32(30):5414-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6001 .
Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98–110.
pubmed: 26062084
pmcid: 4433772
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1044
Chiocchia V, Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Page MJ, Papakonstantinou T, Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Siontis GCM, Egger M, Salanti G. ROB-MEN: a tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):304.
pubmed: 34809639
pmcid: 8609747
doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-02166-3
Chiocchia V, Holloway A, Salanti G. Semi-automated assessment of the risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis: a guidance paper for the ROB-MEN web-application. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):223.
pubmed: 37805460
pmcid: 10559514
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02038-9
Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(10):991–6.
pubmed: 18538991
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76654.
pubmed: 24098547
pmcid: 3789683
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076654
Papakonstantinou T, Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Egger M, Salanti G. CINeMA: software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2020;16(1):e1080.
pubmed: 37131978
pmcid: 8356302
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1080
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2013.
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153–60.
pubmed: 31563865
pmcid: 10231495
doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117
Hornik K, Leisch F, Zeileis A, Plummer M: JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: 2003 2003; 2003.
Plummer, M. rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models using MCMC. R package version 4-15, 2023. https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/rjags/rjags.pdf . Accessed 17 July 2024.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C, GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Bmj. 2017;358:j3453.
Chan EW, Taylor DM, Phillips GA, Castle DJ, Knott JC, Kong DCM. May I have your consent? Informed consent in clinical trials — feasibility in emergency situations. J Psychiatr Intensive Care. 2011;7(2):109-13.
Ventresca M, Schünemann HJ, Macbeth F, Clarke M, Thabane L, Griffiths G, Noble S, Garcia D, Marcucci M, Iorio A, et al. Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):113.
pubmed: 32398016
pmcid: 7218569
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00964-6
Maxwell L, Shreedhar P, Carabali M, Levis B. How to plan and manage an individual participant data meta-analysis. An illustrative toolkit Research Synthesis Methods. 2024;15(1):166–74.
pubmed: 37700398
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1670
Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76–97.
pubmed: 11868447
doi: 10.1177/0163278702025001006
Nevitt SJ, Marson AG, Davie B, Reynolds S, Williams L, Smith CT. Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review. BMJ. 2017;357:j1390.
pubmed: 28381561
pmcid: 5733815
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j1390
Tsujimoto Y, Fujii T, Onishi A, Omae K, Luo Y, Imai H, Takahashi S, Itaya T, Pinson C, Nevitt SJ. No consistent evidence of data availability bias existed in recent individual participant data meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:107–14.
pubmed: 31654789
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.004