Table 1 Study characteristics of the included network meta-analyses
NMA | Population | Interventions | Rationale | Protocol available | NMA type (software) | Transitivity / coherence assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Davey 2021 | “Patients included in RCTs who have undergone management of proximal humerus fractures.” | NOP, LCP, IMN, HA, RSA. | “(...) many new randomized control trials have since been published on the topic, an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis which focuses on outcomes of all displaced proximal humerus fractures, including analysis of IMN is warranted.” | No | Frequentist (RevMan and netmeta package in R). | None / I2-index |
Du 2017 | “3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in senile patients” | NOP, HA, RSA and ORIF (not defined further, but trials with LCP and TB included as ORIF). | “(...) there is no RCTs to evaluate the clinical outcomes after conservative treatment and RSA to date. Therefore, it seems to be particularly important that more high-level evidence-based medical researches are expected to evaluate the value of the therapies.” | No | Bayesian (rjags and gemtc packages in R). | None / Node-splitting |
Orman 2020 | “3-part or 4-part proximal humerus fractures” | NOP, HA, RSA, and ORIF (defined as LCP, but authors also include TB as ORIF) | “(...) previous network meta-analyses have resorted to including non-RCT studies as well as using wide age ranges, which may have diluted the reliability of their findings.” | No | Frequentist (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2) | None / I2-index |