Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Different First-Line Treatment Regimens for Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Network Meta-analysis

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.

To present some simple graphical and quantitative ways to assist interpretation and improve presentation of results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis (MTM). We reanalyze a published network of trials comparing various antiplatelet interventions regarding the incidence of serious vascular events using Bayesian approaches for random effects MTM, and we explore the advantages and drawbacks of various traditional and new forms of quantitative displays and graphical presentations of results. We present the results under various forms, conventionally based on the mean of the distribution of the effect sizes; based on predictions; based on ranking probabilities; and finally, based on probabilities to be within an acceptable range from a reference. We show how to obtain and present results on ranking of all treatments and how to appraise the overall ranks. Bayesian methodology offers a multitude of ways to present results from MTM models, as it enables a natural and easy estimation of all measures based on probabilities, ranks, or predictions. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Important progress has been made in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and in this fifth edition of the Maastricht Consensus Report, key aspects related to the clinical role of H. pylori were re-evaluated in 2015. In the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Conference, 43 experts from 24 countries examined new data related to H. pylori in five subdivided workshops: (1) Indications/Associations, (2) Diagnosis, (3) Treatment, (4) Prevention/Public Health, (5) H. pylori and the Gastric Microbiota. The results of the individual workshops were presented to a final consensus voting that included all participants. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the best available evidence and relevance to the management of H. pylori infection in the various clinical scenarios.