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.
HomeArticlesVol 35,2025 No.12Detail
An introduction to Risk of Bias in Network Meta-analysis (RoB NMA) tool
Published on Dec. 29, 2025Total Views: 5749 timesTotal Downloads: 554 timesDownloadMobile
- Abstract
- Full-text
- References
Abstract
Full-text
References
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.
Popular Papers
-
Sinicization and reliability test of the Family Caregiver Care Stress Management Scale
Oct. 31, 20256053
-
The research progress of the diagnosis and treatment of Raynaud phenomenon
Dec. 29, 20255881
-
A Meta-analysis of the application effect of artificial intelligence-assisted teaching in medical education
Nov. 01, 20255869
-
Association with PM2.5 exposure and metabolic syndrome: a cross-sectional study in rural areas in three provinces of China
Dec. 29, 20255794
-
An introduction to Risk of Bias in Network Meta-analysis (RoB NMA) tool
Dec. 29, 20255749
-
Expression of CD226 in preeclamptic placentas and its role in trophoblast function
Dec. 29, 20255670
-
Progress of oncolytic virus therapy in urological cancers
Dec. 29, 20255658
-
Analysis of the disease burden of neonatal jaundice in China from 1990 to 2021
Dec. 29, 20255624
-
Analysis of influencing factors and predictive model construction of anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury
Dec. 29, 20255491
-
The relationship between physical activity levels, sleep quality, and blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Dec. 29, 20255475
-
Prevalence and influencing factors of intraoperative hypothermia in pediatric patients: a Meta-analysis
Dec. 29, 20255347
-
Association between dietary quality and sarcopenic obesity: based on the NHANES database
Dec. 29, 20255342
-
Research progress on the correlation between PICC insertion site and catheterized pericardial effusion in premature infants
Dec. 29, 20255268
-
Research progress on epigenetic regulation in cognitive impairment of offspring caused by stress during pregnancy
Dec. 29, 20255229
-
The application of bioinformatics on academic thesis of Chinese graduate student: a bibliometric analysis based on VOSviewer
Dec. 29, 20255073
Welcome to visit Zhongnan Medical Journal Press Series journal website!