
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39117407
10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084564
bmjopen-2024-084564
Protocol
Mental Health
1712
1506
Comparative effect of different mindfulness-based intervention types and deliveries on depression in patients with breast cancer: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0110-3019
Zhang Deqi 1zhangdeqi2018@163.com

Zhao Wenxin 2zhaowx0407@163.com

Yuan Lin 1Wowlin1998@163.com

http://orcid.org/0009-0001-2981-9322
Chen Qiang 1chenq_666@163.com

Xu Qiling 12571253402@qq.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8404-5032
Jiang Xiaoyu 1jiangking1999@163.com

Bi Hongyan 3hongyan_bi@163.com

1 College of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong, China
2 Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Clinical Medical College, Jinan, Shandong, China
3 Department of Rehabilitation, Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong, China
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

None declared.

Dr; hongyan_bi@163.com
2024
7 8 2024
14 8 e08456422 1 2024
09 7 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Introduction

Breast cancer has become the most common cancer worldwide. Various types of mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction) have been conducted in different delivery methods (including face to face and internet delivered) to help patients with breast cancer mitigate their depression. However, at present, there are no studies that compare the effectiveness of all these types and deliveries of mindfulness-based interventions. Therefore, this protocol aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of various types and deliveries of mindfulness-based interventions in mitigating depression in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

This protocol is according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, The China National Knowledge Infrastructure and OpenGrey, will be comprehensively retrieved for related randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to December 2023. Two reviewers will independently assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Trials 2.0 (RoB 2.0). The network meta-analysis will be performed using the STATA V.16.0, and the assessment of heterogeneity, inconsistency, publication bias, evidence quality, subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be conducted.

Ethics and dissemination

This protocol does not require approval from an ethics committee as it is based on previous research findings. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42024495996.

systematic review
quality in health care
rehabilitation medicine
mental health
meta-analysis
breast tumours
Science and Technology Project of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Shandong Province Z-2022090T Funding sources did not participate in study design, in the collection and analysis of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This systematic review and network meta-analysis will include various types and deliveries of mindfulness-based interventions to evaluate their effectiveness in mitigating depression in patients with breast cancer.

The study will be carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines.

The quality of this network meta-analysis may be limited by the heterogeneity among the included trials in terms of design (e.g., randomised controlled trial (RCT), non-RCT), quality and risk of bias.

Due to the potential lack of direct comparisons between different types and delivery methods of mindfulness-based interventions, the credibility and interpretability of the results may be reduced.

Including only trials published in Chinese and English may lead to the omission of important studies published in other languages, thereby affecting the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the results.

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer worldwide, leading to the main cause of cancer-related mortality in women.1 The WHO reported that approximately 2.3 million women were diagnosed with BC globally in 2022, and male BC accounts for approximately 0.5%–1% of all BC cases.2 Early detection of cancer and advances in primary cancer treatment (surgery plus chemotherapy or radiotherapy) and endocrine therapy have resulted in a growing number of BC survivors.3 However, because of the numerous adverse effects related to traditional chemotherapy and radiation therapy, patients with BC often develop co-occurring symptoms with cancer treatments, such as fatigue, depression, anxiety, stress and pain, which can last for months or even years after the treatment is concluded.47 Among these, depression, with a global prevalence of 32.2% among patients with BC, has been suggested as a strong risk factor for cancer progression and death,8 9 seriously impairing the quality of life in patients with BC. Therefore, more appropriate management strategies are urgently needed to alleviate depression in patients with BC.

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), as a complementary therapy for symptom management among cancer survivors, have been increasingly popular.10 Mindfulness, with a core construct of self-regulation of attention, was to help individuals pay attention to the present moment consciously and to be curious, open and accepting of the present-moment experience in a nonjudgmental way.11 12 Currently, MBIs include mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR), mindfulness meditation training (MMT) and other adapted versions of mindfulness.13 Among them, MBSR and MBCR are the most common structured MBIs and are suggested to be effective in alleviating depression in patients with BC by current meta-analyses.7 14 15

Conventional MBIs were mainly conducted in face-to-face groups. Patients with BC are more likely to feel safe in face-to-face groups, which makes it easier for them to trust each other, and learn how to recognise their emotions.16 However, the face-to-face group format may lead to scheduling conflicts for patients with BC who have completed primary treatment, as this period is associated with the return to work and human interaction for them.17 Especially, the COVID-19 pandemic is also a hindrance to the face-to-face group format MBIs. As a result, internet-delivered MBIs (iMBIs) such as internet-delivered MBCT (iMBCT) and internet-delivered MBSR (iMBSR)18 19 are being increasingly used, as their benefits include decreasing cost, saving time, helping researchers recruit more participants.2022 Nevertheless, the current studies are insufficient to guide clinical decision-making well, as recent evidence7 10 14 15 18 19 mainly focuses on the comparisons between face-to-face MBIs (or iMBIs) and usual control, the direct comparisons between different types or deliveries of MBIs are insufficient. In other words, we still do not know which type of MBI is the most effective or which delivery (face to face or internet delivered) of MBI is the most effective.

The network meta-analysis (NMA) allows three or more interventions to be compared simultaneously in a single analysis by combining direct and indirect evidence across a network of studies.23 To the best of our knowledge, there was no NMA that synthesised various types of MBI to compare their relative efficacy in alleviating depression in patients with BC. Therefore, in this systematic review and NMA, we will treat some kind of MBI for different delivery methods as different interventions. For example, we refer to conventional face-to-face group format MBSR as face-to-face MBSR and internet-delivered iMBSR as iMBSR, we also refer to MBSR delivered through a combination of face-to-face and internet formats as hybrid MBSR. Then, these MBIs will be included in the NMA to compare their relative efficacy in alleviating depression in patients with BC.

The purpose of this systematic review and NMA is to establish a hierarchy of the efficacy of various types (and deliveries) of MBIs in mitigating depression in patients with BC.

Methods

Design and registration

This protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024495996) and was reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P).24 Additionally, this systematic review and NMA will be conducted following the PRISMA-NMA.24 Any amendments to the protocol will be made through PROSPERO. The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Inclusion criteria

Types of studies

The study will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as well as other types of trials published in English or Chinese.

Types of participants

Patients with BC will be included if they were identified with depression at baseline using standardised diagnostic criteria or a clinical cut-off score on a validated rating scale. Patients with BC with depressive symptoms that did not meet diagnostic criteria will also be included, regardless of gender, ethnicity, types of BC, cancer stages and current treatments. Trials will be included if at least 30%–50% of the general cancer population are patients with BC.25

Types of interventions

Trials’ interventions must meet at least one of the following criteria:

MBCT, MBCR, MBSR, MMT and other adapted versions of mindfulness in face-to-face format.

MBCT, MBCR, MBSR, MMT and other adapted versions of mindfulness in internet-delivered format.

MBCT, MBCR, MBSR, MMT and other adapted versions of mindfulness are delivered via a combination of internet and face-to-face formats in one study arm.

Types of control groups

Treatments in the comparison groups can be standard treatment including usual care (e.g., basic medical services, psychological support, self-management support),26 no intervention and waitlist; or other types or deliveries of MBIs. Additionally, based on a previous meta-analysis27 on this topic, we will include supportive-expressive therapy as an active control.

Types of outcome

The outcome will be depression, assessed by applying standardised and validated depression scales (e.g., Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale).

Exclusion criteria

We will also apply the exclusion criteria as follows:

(1) trials without full text; (2) trials without available or convertible data (non-convertible data including graphical data, categorical data); (3) duplicate or retracted trials. Trials that meet any of the criteria above will be excluded.

Search strategy

The literature will be comprehensively retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The search period will range from the date of establishment of the database to December 2023. The studies will be limited to English or Chinese. A combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free words related to “breast cancer”, “depression”, “mindfulness-based interventions” and “RCT” will be used. Unpublished studies will be searched via OpenGrey and conference proceedings; and we will also search the international trial register platforms such as Clinical Trial Registration and WHO–International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify the ongoing trials. The detailed search strategies are provided in online supplemental file 1.

Study selection

Two researchers (DZ and WZ) will collaboratively search the literature in the above-mentioned databases. The search strategies will be peer-reviewed by a suitably qualified and experienced medical/healthcare librarian or information specialist prior to execution, following the Cochrane Handbook recommendations.28 EndNote V.X9 software will be used to remove duplicates. After removing the duplicates, two researchers (DZ and WZ) will independently examine the titles and abstracts of identified studies for eligibility following the inclusion criteria, and the irrelevant studies will be excluded. Then, the full texts of retained studies will be reviewed and evaluated for final inclusion independently by two researchers (DZ and WZ). All disagreements will be resolved by a third independent researcher (XJ). The selection of studies in the systematic review will be illustrated in figure 1, based on the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting new systematic reviews.24

Figure 1 The flow chart of studies selection.

Based on our preliminary search, we have identified a sufficient number of studies to conduct a robust NMA.29 This ensures that our analysis will be comprehensive and statistically reliable.

Data extraction

Two researchers (DZ and WZ) will independently extract the relevant data from the included articles based on the Cochrane handbook.28 The extracted data will be as follows: study general data (e.g., authors, year of publication, country of study, study design, methods of randomisation and blinding); participant characteristics (e.g., sample size, age, cancer type, treatment phase); intervention and control (e.g., intervention type, duration, frequency, intensity, follow-up, control group); outcome (e.g., measures of effect) and access time. If possible, the corresponding author will be contacted for further information or data as necessary. From each study, the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the outcomes, and sample sizes for both the intervention and control groups will be collected to calculate the Hedges’ effect size using the formula provided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.30

Risk of bias assessment

Two researchers (DZ and WZ) will independently examine the methodological quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Trials 2.0 (RoB 2.0).31 RoB 2.0 evaluates the following domains: randomisation process, deviations from the intended interventions, missing outcome data, outcome measurement and reporting bias. Each domain will be assigned a category characterising the potential risk of bias as either ‘low risk’, ‘some concerns’ or ‘high risk’. The discrepancy will be resolved by a third researcher (XJ).

Statistical analysis

Network and pairwise meta-analysis

This NMA will be conducted using STATA V.16.0 under a frequentist framework with a random-effects model because of the unavoidable heterogeneity of the multiple MBIs and outcome depression scales included. Where there are more than two studies existing on the same MBI, the conventional pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted for direct comparisons using STATA V.16.0. Hedges’ effect size with a 95% confidence interval (CI) will be used to compare the relative effectiveness of the different MBIs included. Hedges’ effect size is preferred in this context because it provides a more accurate estimate of effect size, especially in studies with smaller sample sizes, which can be common in meta-analyses with a limited number of primary studies.32 A league table will be used to conduct the pairwise analysis and analyse the results of the comparisons among the multiple MBIs based on NMA. To explore the best evidence for mitigating depression, a probability-based ranking will be established based on the surface under the cumulative ranking method. A network plot of all comparisons will be generated using STATA V.16.0, where interventions are represented by nodes, the line between nodes represents a direct comparison between the two MBIs, the thickness of this line represents the number of studies included in this direct comparison, and the size of the nodes indicates the sample size. A narrative synthesis of findings will be conducted according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines when meta-analysis is unavailable.33

Heterogeneity assessment

Heterogeneity will be assessed using the χ2 test (χ2 or Cochrane Q) and inconsistency index (I2) to examine whether the results of individual studies could be combined.34 Statistical heterogeneity (p≥0.1, I²≤50%) indicates no significant heterogeneity among the studies, and a fixed-effects model will therefore be suitable for meta-analysis. Otherwise, heterogeneity (p<0.1, I²>50%) indicates the evidence of significant heterogeneity, and the random effects model will therefore be appropriate for combining the effect size.35

Assumption of transitivity

When conducting an NMA, it is crucial to assess the characteristics of patients and studies, and these characteristics are considered effect modifiers.36 In this study, patient age, symptom duration and severity, intervention types, duration, and intensity will be considered as effect modifiers. Within this context, it will be assumed that the main effect modifiers are as similar as possible among the included studies. The presumed transitivity will be evaluated by comparing the above-mentioned main effect modifiers of the included MBIs.

Inconsistency analysis

The design-by-treatment model will be used to evaluate inconsistency for explaining the various sources of inconsistency (multiarm trial, design-by-treatment interaction, design inconsistency, loop inconsistency). The consistency between direct and indirect evidence will be evaluated using the node-splitting method.37

Additional analysis

Where possible, we will perform subgroup analyses based on various types and deliveries of MBIs, different characteristics of patients with BC and different types of study designs (e.g., RCTs, non-RCTs). These subgroup analyses will help identify whether and how these factors influence the effectiveness of MBIs. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted by excluding each subgroup of different treatment phases in turn to explore the potential impact of treatment phases on the overall findings. Additionally, we will conduct sensitivity analyses by excluding studies with a high risk of bias and those in which 30%–50% of the general cancer population are patients with BC. These sensitivity analyses will help ensure the robustness and validity of our findings. Furthermore, publication bias will be evaluated by Egger’s test and the symmetry of the funnel plot.

Evidence quality assessment

Two researchers (LY and QC) will use The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation system38 to assess the quality of evidence independently. The quality of evidence will be judged as very low, low, moderate and high according to the assessments of the risk of bias, indirectness of evidence, inconsistency, imprecision and publication bias.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public will not be directly involved in this study.

Discussion

Recently, BC has become the most common cancer in the world.1 Current studies have found that patients with BC suffer from physical and psychological problems.47 Among these problems, depression has been suggested as a strong risk factor for cancer progression and death.8 MBIs have been suggested to be promising therapies for this population by previous meta-analyses.7 10 14 15 However, MBIs include various types, including MBCT, MBSR, and MBCR. These interventions can be delivered face-to-face or through innovative methods such as the internet. Therefore, the clinical practice of MBIs presents significant variability. Current research has only demonstrated the effectiveness of some MBIs, but it does not provide guidance for clinicians or therapists on selecting the most effective MBIs.

This study will conduct a systematic review and NMA to integrate both direct and indirect evidence from published studies, compare the relative efficacy of different types and delivery methods of MBIs, identify the most effective MBIs or delivery methods and provide specific recommendations for clinical decision-making and practice. However, the study has several limitations. First, the quality of this NMA may be limited by the heterogeneity among the included trials in terms of design (e.g., RCT, non-RCT), quality and risk of bias. Second, due to the potential lack of direct comparisons between different types and delivery methods of MBIs, the credibility and interpretability of the results may be reduced.39 Third, including only trials published in Chinese and English may lead to the omission of important studies published in other languages, thereby affecting the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the results.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084564 online supplemental file 1

Review Process File
7 8 2024

Funding: This study was funded by the Science and Technology Project of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Shandong Province (grant number: Z-2022090T).

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084564).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
==== Refs
References

1 Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL et al Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2021 71 209 49 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338
2 WHO Cancer 2022 Available https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer
3 DeSantis CE Ma J Gaudet MM et al Breast cancer statistics, 2019 CA Cancer J Clin 2019 69 438 51 10.3322/caac.21583 31577379
4 Schmidt ME Wiskemann J Steindorf K Quality of life, problems, and needs of disease-free breast cancer survivors 5years after diagnosis Qual Life Res 2018 27 2077 86 10.1007/s11136-018-1866-8 29740782
5 van Leeuwen M Husson O Alberti P et al Understanding the quality of life (QOL) issues in survivors of cancer: towards the development of an EORTC QOL cancer survivorship questionnaire Health Qual Life Outcomes 2018 16 114 10.1186/s12955-018-0920-0 29866185
6 Fu OS Crew KD Jacobson JS et al Ethnicity and persistent symptom burden in breast cancer survivors J Cancer Surviv 2009 3 241 50 10.1007/s11764-009-0100-7 19859813
7 Chang YC Yeh TL Chang YM et al Short-term effects of randomized mindfulness-based intervention in female breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis Cancer Nurs 2021 44 E703 14 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000889 34694090
8 Wang X Wang N Zhong L et al Prognostic value of depression and anxiety on breast cancer recurrence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 282,203 patients Mol Psychiatry 2020 25 3186 97 10.1038/s41380-020-00865-6 32820237
9 Pilevarzadeh M Amirshahi M Afsargharehbagh R et al Global prevalence of depression among breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019 176 519 33 10.1007/s10549-019-05271-3 31087199
10 Reangsing C Punsuwun S Keller K Effects of mindfulness-based interventions on depression in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Integr Cancer Ther 2023 22 15347354231220617 10.1177/15347354231220617 38140816
11 Kabat-Zinn J Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future Clin Psychol (New York) 2003 10 144 56 10.1093/clipsy/bpg016
12 Carlson LE Mindfulness-based interventions for coping with cancer Ann N Y Acad Sci 2016 1373 5 12 10.1111/nyas.13029 26963792
13 Li J Li C Puts M et al Effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on anxiety, depression, and fatigue in people with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Nurs Stud 2023 140 104447 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104447 36796118
14 Chang Y-C Tseng TA Lin G-M et al Immediate impact of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) among women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Womens Health 2023 23 331 10.1186/s12905-023-02486-x 37349700
15 Schell LK Monsef I Wöckel A et al Mindfulness-based stress reduction for women diagnosed with breast cancer Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019 3 CD011518 10.1002/14651858.CD011518.pub2 30916356
16 Schellekens MPJ Jansen ETM Willemse HHMA et al A qualitative study on mindfulness-based stress reduction for breast cancer patients: how women experience participating with fellow patients Support Care Cancer 2016 24 1813 20 10.1007/s00520-015-2954-8 26446701
17 Hampton MR Frombach I Women’s experience of traumatic stress in cancer treatment Health Care Women Int 2000 21 67 76 10.1080/073993300245410 11022450
18 Chang Y-C Chiu C-F Wang C-K et al Short-term effect of internet-delivered mindfulness-based stress reduction on mental health, self-efficacy, and body image among women with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic Front Psychol 2022 13 949446 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.949446 36389600
19 Kang C Sun S Yang Z et al The psychological effect of internet-based mindfulness-based stress reduction on the survivors of breast cancer during the COVID-19 Front Psychiatry 2021 12 738579 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.738579 34658972
20 Nissen ER O’Connor M Kaldo V et al Internet-delivered mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for anxiety and depression in cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial Psychooncology 2020 29 68 75 10.1002/pon.5237 31600414
21 Wallin EEK Mattsson S Olsson EMG The preference for internet-based psychological interventions by individuals without past or current use of mental health treatment delivered online: a survey study with mixed-methods analysis JMIR Ment Health 2016 3 e25 10.2196/mental.5324 27302200
22 Setyowibowo H Yudiana W Hunfeld JAM et al Psychoeducation for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Breast 2022 62 36 51 10.1016/j.breast.2022.01.005 35121502
23 Chaimani A Caldwell DM Li T et al Chapter 11: undertaking network meta-analyses Higgins JPT Thomas J Chandler J Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022) 2022 Available www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
24 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM et al The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
25 Miller M Green D Adams W Breast cancer representation in clinical trials: assessing the 30%-50% inclusion criterion Cancer Epidemiol 2019 45 145 56 10.1007/s00702-017-1686-y
26 Young HM Miyamoto S Tang-Feldman Y et al Defining usual care comparators when designing pragmatic trials of complex health interventions: a methodology review Trials 2019 20 123 10.1186/s13063-019-3712-0 30755263
27 Haller H Winkler MM Klose P et al Mindfulness-based interventions for women with breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis Acta Oncol 2017 56 1665 76 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1342862 28686520
28 Higgins J Deek JJ Chapter 7: selecting studies and collecting data Higgins J Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022) 2022
29 Veroniki AA Vasiliadis HS Higgins JP et al Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions Syst Rev 2013 42 332 45 10.1093/ije/dys222
30 Higgins JP Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0 The Cochrane Collaboration 2011
31 Sterne JAC Savović J Page MJ et al RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2019 366 l4898 10.1136/bmj.l4898 31462531
32 Hedges LV Recommendations for practice: justifying claims of evidence-based practice Educ Meas Issues Pract 2013 32 41 7 10.1111/emip.12021
33 Campbell M McKenzie JE Sowden A et al Synthesis without meta-analysis (swim) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline BMJ 2020 368 l6890 10.1136/bmj.l6890 31948937
34 Grant J Hunter A Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases J Intell Inf Syst 2006 27 159 84 10.1007/s10844-006-2974-4
35 Cushing CC Brannon EE Suorsa KI et al Systematic review and meta-analysis of health promotion interventions for children and adolescents using an ecological framework J Pediatr Psychol 2014 39 949 62 10.1093/jpepsy/jsu042 24934246
36 Hutton B Salanti G Caldwell DM et al The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations Ann Intern Med 2015 162 777 84 10.7326/M14-2385 26030634
37 van Valkenhoef G Dias S Ades AE et al Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis Res Synth Methods 2016 7 80 93 10.1002/jrsm.1167 26461181
38 Balshem H Helfand M Schünemann HJ et al GRADE guidelines: 3. rating the quality of evidence J Clin Epidemiol 2011 64 401 6 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 21208779
39 Li T Puhan MA Vedula SS et al Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis BMJ 2018 360 k565 10.1136/bmj.k565
