The Global Research Collaboration of Network Meta-Analysis: A Social Network Analysis

Abstract

Background and ObjectiveResearch collaborations in biomedical research have evolved over time. No studies have addressed research collaboration in network meta-analysis (NMA). In this study, we used social network analysis methods to characterize global collaboration patterns of published NMAs over the past decades.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched (at 9th July, 2015) to include systematic reviews incorporating NMA. Two reviewers independently selected studies and cross-checked the standardized data. Data was analyzed using Ucinet 6.0 and SPSS 17.0. NetDraw software was used to draw social networks.Results771 NMAs published in 336 journals from 3459 authors and 1258 institutions in 49 countries through the period 1997–2015 were included. More than three-quarters (n = 625; 81.06%) of the NMAs were published in the last 5-years. The BMJ (4.93%), Current Medical Research and Opinion (4.67%) and PLOS One (4.02%) were the journals that published the greatest number of NMAs. The UK and the USA (followed by Canada, China, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany) headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of NMAs. The top 20 authors and institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. Overall, 43 clusters of authors (four major groups: one with 37 members, one with 12 members, one with 11 members and one with 10 members) and 21 clusters of institutions (two major groups: one with 62 members and one with 20 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were affiliated with academic institutions and private consulting firms. 181 consulting firms and pharmaceutical industries (14.39% of institutions) were involved in 199 NMAs (25.81% of total publications). Although there were increases in international and inter-institution collaborations, the research collaboration by authors, institutions and countries were still weak and most collaboration groups were small sizes.ConclusionScientific production on NMA is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries (most notably, the UK, the USA and Canada). More authors, institutions and nations are becoming involved in research collaborations, but frequently with limited international collaborations.

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, delirium, and post-traumatic stress disorder among COVID-19 patients: protocol for a living systematic review

“…In the absence of clinical heterogeneity (determined by RXZ and JHT), the pooled prevalence with a 95% con dence interval (CI) of depression, anxiety, delirium, and PTSD will be calculated by using random-effects model to minimize the effect of between-study heterogeneity separately [22,23]. The statistical heterogeneity will be examined using I² statistic, with an I 2 of more than 75% indicating substantial heterogeneity [23,24], and the Cochran's Q and the Tau2 will also be reported with a P-value of < 0.05 considered statistically signi cant (heterogeneity). The publication bias will be examined using the Egger's test or the symmetry of the funnel plot.…”

Network meta-analysis: the highest level of medical evidence?

“…For instance, meta-analyses on antidepressant drugs are far less likely to report negative statements, if review authors have conflicts of interest 35. Pharmaceutical companies are regularly involved in performing network meta-analyses,5 and in one survey, 19 contracting companies reported that they had performed a total of 476 network meta-analyses, only to publish 102 of them (21%) 36. Research on the impact of industry sponsorship and publication bias on treatment rankings in network meta-analyses is urgently needed.…”

“…Recent upsurge in the production and scientific collaborations of network meta-analyses also indicate increased interest among authors to take advantage of its possibilities 5. However, to deem it the highest level of medical evidence,6 may be premature.…”

“…Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)2 and the Cochrane Collaboration3 typically prefer direct evidence from randomised clinical trials and conventional meta-analyses to indirect evidence. However, the WHO have recently begun using network meta-analyses to inform clinical guidelines,4 the global scientific production of network meta-analyses is increasing rapidly5 and some argue that the methodology should represent the highest level of evidence for instructing clinical decision-making 6. Are we witnessing a shift in what constitutes the highest level of medical evidence?…”

Redes de Cooperación Científico-Tecnológicas en Contextos Intersectoriales

“…La conformación de redes, puede ser analizada con base en sus propiedades estructurales; se mencionan, la densidad que valora la cantidad promedio de lazos, así como la existencia y funcionamiento de los grupos de interés y sus compromisos formales, esto determina los grados de conectividad; igualmente, se considera la cercanía, capacidad de un actor para alcanzar e influenciar a todos los nodos de la red; mientras que la centralidad, atiende a los nodos más importantes, como espacio de confluencia de múltiples flujos, permite identificar los actores que ejercen un mayor poder/mayor motricidad sobre la totalidad del sistema. Desde los aportes deBorgatti (2005), Bakkalbasi yKrichel (2006),Bozdogan (2013),Robinson et al, (2013),Li et al, (2016), la motricidad del sistema está asociada a la posición ventajosa, según grado de centralidad, que tiene un actor sobre los demás; implica una mayor influencia o conexión con el resto de actores; permite identificar los nodos más determinantes en función de su impacto que forman parte de la red.Por su parte, Villanueva-Felez, Fernández-Zubieta y Palomares-Montero (2014), retoman las ideas expuestas porUzzi (1997), para destacar que en el análisis de redes, además de atender el componente estructural, se debe observar la dinámica funcional -relacional, en una dimensión personal (actores) y otra organizacional. Los principios de integración, convergencia, complementariedad e integración entre ambas dimensiones preconfiguran formas de comportamiento; de allí que, el perfil individual de los actores incide de forma significativa en las cualidades de la producción científicatécnica; por su parte, la dinámica de la red como totalidad institucional afecta su carácter cuantitativo.Fundamentado en las vías de conectividad para impulsar el acercamiento entre actores, el análisis de redes supone la conceptualización de una interfaz, como espacio de interacción donde se representan los flujos que en múltiples direcciones y sentidos, permiten el acercamiento y vías de conectividad entre los nodos centrales y periféricos.…”