🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations

Annals of Internal Medicine(2015)10.7326/m14-2385Source: DataRank Database

The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations is a research paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2015). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.3. It has been cited 7,938 times.

N/A
1.3DataRank · unranked
1.3
7938 citations · base score 9.0
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

Data sources & pipeline
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (0/2)
    Interoperable (0/2)
      Reusable (0/3)

        FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

        DataRank Breakdown

        Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

        Base Score Contribution

        1.3

        From this paper's citation signal

        Citation Network Contribution

        0

        Citation network not refreshed for this result

        This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

        Learn more about DataRank methodology →
        Why this DataRank?

        DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.

        Base score B(p)
        log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
        Network N(p)
        Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
        Damping factor d = 0.85
        DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
        Self-citations excluded
        Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

        Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

        Read the full methodology →

        Authors (17)

        Related Papers (10)

        Annals of Internal Medicine(2018)
        co-citedsame journal
        10.7326/m18-0850