Existing risk of bias assessment tools are primarily designed for traditional pairwise Meta-analysis and fail to comprehensively evaluate the unique sources of bias risk inherent in network Meta-analysis. Therefore, Lunny and others developed a tool the Risk of Bias in Network Meta-analysis (RoB NMA), designed specifically to evaluate potential biases in network Meta-analysis arising from aspects such as intervention selection and network structure, effect modifiers, and statistical analysis. This article aims to interpret the development background, item content, and evaluation process of the RoB NMA tool, providing reference and guidance for domestic researchers of its application.

1.Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of Meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011, 11: 163. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-163.

2.Zhao H, Hodges JS, Ma H, et al. Hierarchical Bayesian approaches for detecting inconsistency in network Meta-analysis[J]. Stat Med, 2016, 35(20): 3524-3536. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6938.

3.Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Li T, et al. Undertaking network Meta-analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions[EB/OL]. [2025-07-01]. DOI: 10.1002/9781119536604.ch11.

4.Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons[J]. Stat Med, 2004, 23(20): 3105-3124. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1875.

5.Mills EJ, Bansback N, Ghement I, et al. Multiple treatment comparison Meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity[J]. Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 3: 193-202. DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S16526.

6.Mills EJ, Kanters S, Thorlund K, et al. The effects of excluding treatments from network Meta-analyses: survey[J]. BMJ, 2013, 347: f5195. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f5195.

7.Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, et al. Reporting of results from network Meta-analyses: methodological systematic review[J]. BMJ, 2014, 348: g1741. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g1741.

8.Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence[J]. BMJ, 2005, 331(7521): 897-900. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897.

9.Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP. Demystifying trial networks and network Meta-analysis[J]. BMJ, 2013, 346: f2914. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f2914.

10.Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, et al. Network Meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed[J]. BMC Med, 2011, 9: 79. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-79.

11.Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment Meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(2): 163-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016.

12.Brunström M, Thomopoulos C, Carlberg B, et al. Methodological aspects of Meta-analyses assessing the effect of blood pressure-lowering treatment on clinical outcomes[J]. Hypertension, 2022, 79(3): 491-504. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18413.

13.Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 69: 225-234. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005.

14.Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both[J]. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.

15.吴琼芳, 丁泓帆, 邓围, 等. ROBIS:评估系统评价偏倚风险的新工具[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(12): 1454-1457. [Wu QF, Ding HF, Deng W, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2015, 15(12): 1454-1457.] DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZZXZ.0.2015-12-013.

16.陶欢, 杨乐天, 平安, 等. 随机或非随机防治性研究系统评价的质量评价工具AMSTAR 2解读[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(1): 101-108. [Tao H, Yang LT, Ping A, et  al. Interpretation of AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(1): 101-108.] DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZZXZ.0.2018-01-017.

17.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials[J]. BMJ, 2019, 366: l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898.

18.刘津池, 刘畅, 华成舸. 随机对照试验偏倚风险评价工具RoB2(2019修订版)解读[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21(6): 737-744. [Liu JC, Liu C, Hua CG. Risk bias assessment tool RoB2 (revised version 2019) for randomized controlled trial :an interpretation[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2021, 21(6): 737-744.] DOI: 10.7507/1672-2531.202011144.

19.Page MJ, Sterne JAC, Boutron I, et al. ROB-ME: a tool for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in systematic reviews with Meta-analysis[J]. BMJ, 2023, 383: e076754. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076754.

20.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[J]. BMC Med, 2021, 19(1): 304. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-02166-3.

21.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[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2023, 23(7): 843-848. [Deng XJ, Hu YP, Gao G, et al. Risk of bias due to missing evidence (ROB-ME): a Chinese interpretation[J].Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(7): 843-848.] DOI: 10.7507/1672-2531.202303107.

22.胡玉鹏, 朱涛, 邓湘金, 等. 网状Meta分析证据缺失偏倚风险评价工具ROB-MEN中文解读[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2024, 24(4): 451-458. [Hu YP, Zhu T, Deng XJ, et al. A Chinese introduction to risk of bias due to missing evidence in network Meta-analysis(ROB-MEN)[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2024, 24(4): 451-458.] https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-ZZXZ202404009.htm

23.Lunny C, Higgins JPT, White IR, et al. Risk of bias in network Meta-analysis (RoB NMA) tool[J]. BMJ, 2025, 388: e079839. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-079839.

24.Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network Meta-analysis[J]. BMJ, 2024, 386: e080107. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-080107.