Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Correction

Correction: An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review

  • James D. Chambers,
  • Huseyin Naci,
  • Olivier J. Wouters,
  • Junhee Pyo,
  • Shalak Gunjal,
  • Ian R. Kennedy,
  • Mark G. Hoey,
  • Aaron Winn,
  • Peter J. Neumann

In the second paragraph of the Results the sentence describing the number of studies receiving non-profit or no support should read “The majority of studies adopted a Bayesian framework (n = 214, 67%) and either received non-profit or no support (n = 217, 69%).”

In the final paragraph of the Results the percentage of studies with a closed loop is incorrect. The correct sentence should read “Among studies with a closed loop, i.e., three or more included treatments had been compared in head-to-head trials, 31% did not report the consistency of direct and indirect evidence.”

Under Publication Date the p value for 62% versus 79% should read (62% versus 79%, p = 0.0005).

Under Source of Financial Support the p value for 49% versus 28% in the first paragraph should read (49% versus 28%, p = 0.0003).

Under Source of Financial Support the second paragraph should read “Industry-supported studies more often used a Bayesian framework (77% versus 63%, p = 0.0191), and adjusted for study covariates (38% versus 25%, p = 0.0205); however, they less often performed a risk of bias assessment of included studies (54% versus 77%, p∠0.0001), and, for closed loop studies, less often compared the consistency of direct and indirect evidence (39% versus 79%, p∠0.0001).”

In the Discussion the third paragraph should read “An interesting finding is that industry-sponsored studies more often used a Bayesian framework”

Fig 1 is incorrect in the published article. Please see the correct Fig 1 here.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Identification of network meta-analyses included in review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131953.g001

There are errors in Table 1 and Table 2 of the published article. Please see the correct tables here.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Frequency of network meta-analyses (n = 318) by year, indication, and country

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131953.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Assessment of network meta-analysis study characteristics

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131953.t002

Reference

  1. 1. Chambers JD, Naci H, Wouters OJ, Pyo J, Gunjal S, Kennedy IR, et al. (2015) An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0121715. pmid:25923737

Citation: Chambers JD, Naci H, Wouters OJ, Pyo J, Gunjal S, Kennedy IR, et al. (2015) Correction: An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131953

Published: July 21, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Chambers et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited