A Chinese introduction to risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN)_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

HU Yupeng ¹ , ZHU Tao ¹ , DENG Xiangjin ¹ , ZENG Wei ¹ , CHEN Jinlong ¹ ,  TANG Wei ¹ , LIU Chang ^1,2

1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery & "Medicine+Manufacturing" Center, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
2. Department of Information Management & Department of Dental Informatics & Department of Evidence-Based Dentistry, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

TANG Wei, Email: mydrtw@vip.sina.com

Keywords：

Bias due to missing evidence; Publication bias; Risk of bias; Systematic review; Network meta-analysis; Pairwise comparison

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202309087

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Selective non-reporting and publication bias of study results threaten the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, thus affect clinical decision making. There are no rigorous methods to evaluate the risk of bias in network meta-analyses currently. This paper introduces the main contents of ROB-MEN (risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis), including tables of the tool, operation process and signal questions. The pairwise comparisons table and the ROB-MEN table are the tool’s core. The ROB-MEN tool can be applied to very large and complex networks including lots of interventions to avoid time-consuming and labor-intensive process, and it has the advantages of clear logic, complete details and good applicability. It is the first tool used to evaluate the risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis and is useful to researchers, thus being worth popularizing and applying.

Citation： HU Yupeng, ZHU Tao, DENG Xiangjin, ZENG Wei, CHEN Jinlong, TANG Wei, LIU Chang. A Chinese introduction to risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN). Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2024, 24(4): 451-458. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202309087 Copy

1.	Page MJ, Sterne JAC, Boutron I, et al. Risk of bias due to missing Evidence (ROB-ME): a new tool for assessing risk of non-reporting biases in evidence syntheses. 2020.
2.	邓湘金, 胡玉鹏, 高歌, 等. 不报告偏倚风险评价工具ROB-ME中文解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2023, 23(7): 843-848.
3.	Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 1997, 315(7109): 629-634.
4.	Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol, 2001, 54(10): 1046-1055.
5.	Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008, 61(10): 991-996.
6.	Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 2011, 343: d4002.
7.	Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med, 2006, 25(20): 3443-3457.
8.	Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA, 2006, 295(6): 676-680.
9.	Copas JB, Shi JQ. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Stat Methods Med Res, 2001, 10(4): 251-265.
10.	McShane BB, Böckenholt U, Hansen KT. Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: an evaluation of selection methods and some cautionary notes. Perspect Psychol Sci, 2016, 11(5): 730-749.
11.	Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods, 2012, 3(2): 161-176.
12.	Mavridis D, Sutton A, Cipriani A, et al. A fully Bayesian application of the Copas selection model for publication bias extended to network meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2013, 32(1): 51-66.
13.	Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e76654.
14.	Chiocchia V, Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, et al. ROB-MEN: a tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis. BMC Med, 2021, 19(1): 304.
15.	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.
16.	Birkinshaw H, Friedrich CM, Cole P, et al. Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2023, (5): CD014682.
17.	Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet, 2018, 391(10128): 1357-1366.
18.	赵坤, 陈凌霄, 田金徽, 等. 使用R、GeMTC和STATA软件实现连续变量的网状Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(7): 861-868.
19.	Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, et al. CINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 2020, 17(4): e1003082.
20.	胡晶, 杨智荣, 詹思延. 间接比较和多种干预措施比较的方法学及应用. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2011, 6(6): 456-459.
21.	王琪, 王建成, 潘蓓, 等. 网状Meta分析证据质量分级: GRADE方法学前沿与进展. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(8): 979-985.
22.	王琪, 王韵华, 赖鸿皓, 等. 网状Meta分析证据质量分级: CINeMA在线应用程序简介. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(9): 1111-1116.
23.	李倩茹, 邱霞, 葛龙, 等. 如何撰写动物实验网状Meta分析. 中国药物评价, 2016, 33(4): 193-196.
24.	王巍巍, 杨智荣, 孙凤, 等. 网状Meta分析GRADE证据总结表的制订、解读与应用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(12): 1471-1476.
25.	易跃雄, 张蔚, 刘小媛, 等. 网状Meta分析图形结果解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(1): 103-109.

1. Page MJ, Sterne JAC, Boutron I, et al. Risk of bias due to missing Evidence (ROB-ME): a new tool for assessing risk of non-reporting biases in evidence syntheses. 2020.
2. 邓湘金, 胡玉鹏, 高歌, 等. 不报告偏倚风险评价工具ROB-ME中文解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2023, 23(7): 843-848.
3. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 1997, 315(7109): 629-634.
4. Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol, 2001, 54(10): 1046-1055.
5. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008, 61(10): 991-996.
6. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 2011, 343: d4002.
7. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med, 2006, 25(20): 3443-3457.
8. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA, 2006, 295(6): 676-680.
9. Copas JB, Shi JQ. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Stat Methods Med Res, 2001, 10(4): 251-265.
10. McShane BB, Böckenholt U, Hansen KT. Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: an evaluation of selection methods and some cautionary notes. Perspect Psychol Sci, 2016, 11(5): 730-749.
11. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods, 2012, 3(2): 161-176.
12. Mavridis D, Sutton A, Cipriani A, et al. A fully Bayesian application of the Copas selection model for publication bias extended to network meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2013, 32(1): 51-66.
13. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e76654.
14. Chiocchia V, Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, et al. ROB-MEN: a tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis. BMC Med, 2021, 19(1): 304.
15. 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.
16. Birkinshaw H, Friedrich CM, Cole P, et al. Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2023, (5): CD014682.
17. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet, 2018, 391(10128): 1357-1366.
18. 赵坤, 陈凌霄, 田金徽, 等. 使用R、GeMTC和STATA软件实现连续变量的网状Meta分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(7): 861-868.
19. Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, et al. CINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 2020, 17(4): e1003082.
20. 胡晶, 杨智荣, 詹思延. 间接比较和多种干预措施比较的方法学及应用. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2011, 6(6): 456-459.
21. 王琪, 王建成, 潘蓓, 等. 网状Meta分析证据质量分级: GRADE方法学前沿与进展. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(8): 979-985.
22. 王琪, 王韵华, 赖鸿皓, 等. 网状Meta分析证据质量分级: CINeMA在线应用程序简介. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(9): 1111-1116.
23. 李倩茹, 邱霞, 葛龙, 等. 如何撰写动物实验网状Meta分析. 中国药物评价, 2016, 33(4): 193-196.
24. 王巍巍, 杨智荣, 孙凤, 等. 网状Meta分析GRADE证据总结表的制订、解读与应用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(12): 1471-1476.
25. 易跃雄, 张蔚, 刘小媛, 等. 网状Meta分析图形结果解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(1): 103-109.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

A Chinese introduction to risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN)

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content