Display options
Share it on

PLoS One. 2016 Sep 29;11(9):e0163239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163239. eCollection 2016.

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

PloS one

Lun Li, Ferrán Catalá-López, Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo, Jinhui Tian, Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent, Dawid Pieper, Long Ge, Liang Yao, Quan Wang, Kehu Yang

Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  2. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
  3. Department of Medicine, University of Valencia/ INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain.
  4. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  5. Department of History of Science and Documentation, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
  6. Ingenio-Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) and UISYS-University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
  7. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Department for Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
  8. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital, Four Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.

PMID: 27685998 PMCID: PMC5042468 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163239

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Research 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.

METHODS: PubMed, 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.

RESULTS: 771 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.

CONCLUSION: Scientific 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.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Lancet. 2015 Nov 28;386(10009):2145-91 - PubMed
  2. PLoS One. 2010 Nov 10;5(11):e11054 - PubMed
  3. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65 - PubMed
  4. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2015 Aug;5(4):311-5 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Sep;67(9):1001-7 - PubMed
  6. Stat Med. 2002 Aug 30;21(16):2313-24 - PubMed
  7. Nature. 2012 Jan 25;481(7382):411 - PubMed
  8. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84 - PubMed
  9. Ann Neurosci. 2015 Jul;22(3):127-9 - PubMed
  10. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2 - PubMed
  11. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):166-75 - PubMed
  12. Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):679-91 - PubMed
  13. Heart Lung Vessel. 2015;7(2):133-42 - PubMed
  14. PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028 - PubMed
  15. Soc Sci Med. 2008 May;66(9):1909-14 - PubMed
  16. J Infect Dis. 2004 Mar 1;189(5):930-7 - PubMed
  17. J Obes. 2013;2013:919287 - PubMed
  18. BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1061-4 - PubMed
  19. BMC Med. 2014 Jan 29;12:15 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 29;10(4):e0121715 - PubMed
  21. Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):607-17 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91 - PubMed
  23. Lancet. 2015 Dec 5;386(10010):2287-323 - PubMed
  24. BMJ. 2013 Jul 01;347:f3675 - PubMed
  25. BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167-70 - PubMed
  26. BMJ. 2014 Mar 11;348:g1741 - PubMed
  27. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008 Mar;29(2):109-13 - PubMed
  28. Science. 2008 Nov 21;322(5905):1259-62 - PubMed
  29. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Jul 16;159(2):130-7 - PubMed
  30. JAMA. 2003 May 21;289(19):2534-44 - PubMed
  31. BMC Med. 2011 Jun 27;9:79 - PubMed
  32. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Apr 23;13:52 - PubMed
  33. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 6;101 Suppl 1:5200-5 - PubMed
  34. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26;9(3):e92508 - PubMed
  35. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;62(9):944-52 - PubMed
  36. BMJ. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):782 - PubMed
  37. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28 - PubMed
  38. Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1573-86 - PubMed

Publication Types