Sousa, P. G.Tonin, FernandaMainka, F.Pontarolo, R.2023-05-182023-05-182022-12Sousa PG, Tonin FS, Mainka F, Pontarolo R. Mapping the characteristics of network meta-analyses on antithrombotic therapies: an overview and critical appraisal. In: ISPOR Europe 2022, Vienna (Austria), November 6-9, 2022. Value Health. 2022;25;12(Suppl):S42.http://hdl.handle.net/10400.21/16074Objectives: A large number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in the field of cardiac disease are available, yet the scientific literature lacks an updated straightforward synthesis of this evidence to ground the decision-making process. We aimed to map and critically appraise NMAs on antithrombotic therapies used as treatment or prophylaxis of cardiac diseases and cardiac surgical procedures. Methods: A systematic review of systematic reviews with meta-analysis was conducted following Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Briggs recommendations (PROSPERO-CRD2020166468). Searches to identify NMAs meeting the eligibility criteria of this study were performed in PubMed and Scopus (Jan-2022). NMAs characteristics including metadata, statistical models’ description, and main pooled results were collected. The methodological quality of NMAs was evaluated using the PRISMA-NMA checklist and AMSTAR-2 tools. Descriptive statistical analyses with categorical variables reported as frequencies and continuous variables as the median and interquartile range (IQR) were performed (SPSS-Statistics v.25.0). Results: Overall, n=88 NMAs published between 2007-2022 were identified. The most evaluated clinical condition was atrial fibrillation (n=57; 64.7%); around one-third of the studies (38.6%) assessed cardiac surgical procedures. Only 28.4% NMAs had a registered study protocol. Fifty NMAs (56.8%) were published by authors from one single country China the most frequently. A median of 14 primary studies (IQR 5-20.75) (mostly randomized clinical trials) were included per NMA. A median of 40 (IQR 24-84.25) indirect meta-analyses per study were found. At least one network diagram for a given outcome was provided by 68 (77.2%) studies, yet only 22 (25.6%) performed treatment ranking analyses. Conflict of interest declarations and study funding were informed by 34 (38.6%) and 38 (43.2%) NMAs, respectively. Conclusions: Although there is a widespread of NMA-type studies assessing different antithrombotic agents for different cardiac conditions, the lack of standardized conduction and reporting of NMAs (poor-moderate methodological quality) may limit their comparison and results implementation into clinical practice.engAntithrombotic therapiesCritical appraisalconference object10.1016/j.jval.2022.09.200