Evidence Hub

Assessing the Impact of Unpublished Data on Network Meta-Analysis Outcomes in Outpatient Adults with Acute Migraine: A Study within a Review

A. Dobrescu, B. Nussbaumer-Streit, G. Wagner, A. Sharifan, A. Gadinger, I. Klerings, C. Nowak, G. Gartlehner

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2025

6,735 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Methodological guidance recommends including both published and unpublished data in systematic reviews to enhance reliability and reduce potential bias.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of unpublished data from double-blind, pharmacologic randomized controlled trials on the results of network meta-analysis (NMA) of migraine treatments.

METHODS

We supplemented the search of a recent systematic review with targeted searches for unpublished data on ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency reports, The Preprints Citation Index, Europe PMC, and Embase.com, and conference abstracts from the past five years. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies, verified publication status, extracted data, and reassessed certainty of evidence (COE). We reproduced the original NMA including unpublished data for four dichotomous outcomes. We compared our results with the original NMA in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk difference (ARD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), COE assessments, and conclusions.

RESULTS

Seventeen (6,735 participants) out of 37 eligible unpublished trials had posted results and were analyzed, with most (59%) identified via trial registries. Additionally, unpublished outcome data were retrieved for four published trials from the original analysis. These unpublished trials added two previously unrepresented interventions to the NMA, increasing the number of direct…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,735 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free