In the second paragraph of the Results the sentence describing the number of studies receiving non-profit or no support should read “The majority of studies adopted a Bayesian framework (n = 214, 67%) and either received non-profit or no support (n = 217, 69%).”
In the final paragraph of the Results the percentage of studies with a closed loop is incorrect. The correct sentence should read “Among studies with a closed loop, i.e., three or more included treatments had been compared in head-to-head trials, 31% did not report the consistency of direct and indirect evidence.”
Under Publication Date the p value for 62% versus 79% should read (62% versus 79%, p = 0.0005).
Under Source of Financial Support the p value for 49% versus 28% in the first paragraph should read (49% versus 28%, p = 0.0003).
Under Source of Financial Support the second paragraph should read “Industry-supported studies more often used a Bayesian framework (77% versus 63%, p = 0.0191), and adjusted for study covariates (38% versus 25%, p = 0.0205); however, they less often performed a risk of bias assessment of included studies (54% versus 77%, p∠0.0001), and, for closed loop studies, less often compared the consistency of direct and indirect evidence (39% versus 79%, p∠0.0001).”
In the Discussion the third paragraph should read “An interesting finding is that industry-sponsored studies more often used a Bayesian framework”
Fig 1 is incorrect in the published article. Please see the correct Fig 1 here.
thumbnail
Download:
*
PPT
PowerPoint slide
*
PNG
larger image
*
TIFF
original image
Fig 1. Identification of network meta-analyses included in review.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131953.g001
There are errors in Table 1 and Table 2 of the
1. Chambers JD, Naci H, Wouters OJ, Pyo J, Gunjal S, Kennedy IR, et al. (2015) An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0121715. pmid:25923737
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2015 Chambers et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.