<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Veroniki AA</submitter><funding>Swiss National Science Foundation</funding><pagination>246</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8434710</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>10(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and o</pubmed_abstract><journal>Systematic reviews</journal><pubmed_title>Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC8434710</pmcid><funding_grant_id>320030</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>179158</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Tricco AC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tsokani S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Papakonstantinou T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Salanti G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Veroniki AA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mavridis D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pagkalidou I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chaimani A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Straus SE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kontouli KM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lunny C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ambarcioglu P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zevgiti S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hutton B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Nikolakopoulou A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pandis N</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and o</description><dates><release>2021-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2021 Sep</publication><modification>2026-05-09T04:41:15.493Z</modification><creation>2022-02-11T10:54:16.861Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC8434710</accession><cross_references><pubmed>34507621</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s13643-021-01780-9</doi></cross_references></HashMap>