Table 2 IPD identification process of included IPD-NMAs
Items | Frequency | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
Methods used to identify IPD eligible studies (n = 21) | ||
 Collaborative groupa | 12 | 57.1 |
 Systematic review and contacting authors | 7 | 33.3 |
 Other methodsb | 2 | 9.5 |
Did the authors obtain IPD from all studies or just a subset? (n = 21) | ||
 All studies | 7 | 33.3 |
 Not reported | 14 | 66.7 |
IPD-NMAs that identified IPD through systematic reviews (n = 7) | ||
 Proportion of contacted authors provided IPD | ||
  46.8% | 1 | 14.3 |
  70.0% | 1 | 14.3 |
  80.0% | 1 | 14.3 |
  Not reported | 4 | 57.1 |
 Whether a literature search was conducted? (yes) | 7 | 100.0 |
 Number of databases searched |  |  |
  2 to 5 | 3 | 42.9 |
  6 to 9 | 3 | 42.9 |
  14 | 1 | 14.3 |
 Name of database | ||
  PubMed/MEDLINE | 6 | 85.7 |
  Cochrane Library | 6 | 85.7 |
6 | 85.7 | |
  EMBASE | 4 | 57.1 |
  Web of Science | 2 | 28.6 |
  ICRTP | 2 | 28.6 |
 Reported the year of retrieval of databases | 6 | 85.7 |
 Presented search strategy | 3 | 42.9 |
  Online supplement | 1 | 14.3 |
  Manuscript | 1 | 14.3 |
  Previous published study | 1 | 14.3 |