Characteristics of Delphi round 1 respondents and expertise in NMAs
| Characteristics | Overall (n=28) |
| Primary and current roles* | |
| Statistician | 15 (53.7%) |
| Academic | 10 (35.7%) |
| Systematic review specialist or scientist | 4 (14.3%) |
| Epidemiologist | 4 (14.3%) |
| Graduate student/postdoctoral researcher | 4 (14.3%) |
| Clinician or allied health professional | 2 (%) |
| HTA producer or specialist | 1 (%) |
| Health economist | 1 (%) |
| Independent researcher | 1 (%) |
| Journal editor | 1 (%) |
| Geographic region | 1 (%) |
| North America/Central America | 11 (39.2%) |
| Europe | 15 (53.6%) |
| Australasia | 3 (%) |
| Primary affiliation* | |
| University | 19 (67.9%) |
| Research institute | 5 (%) |
| Hospital | 4 (%) |
| Government | 1 (%) |
| For-profit private organisation (eg, industry) | 4 (%) |
| Non-profit organisation (eg, NGO, charity) | 1 (%) |
| Primary affiliation produces systematic reviews with NMA | 27 (%) |
| Type of experience with NMAs | 24 (%) |
| Subject-matter expert or experienced researcher with knowledge of a variety of evidence synthesis methods and practical experience with systematic reviews with NMA | 23 (%) |
| Author with publications relevant to systematic reviews with NMA | 19 (%) |
| Reader and user of systematic reviews with NMA | 17 (%) |
| Author of a tool for systematic reviews with NMA | 12 (%) |
| Perceived expertise in methods used in the conduct of systematic reviews with NMAs on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents ‘beginner’ and 100 represents ‘expert’ | Mean 80.3 (SD 13.9) |
| Perceived expertise in identification of potential biases in NMAs on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents ‘beginner’ and 100 represents ‘expert’. | Mean 71 (SD 22.7) |
*Percentages add to >100% because respondents could provide more than one response.
HTA, heath technology assessment; NGO, non-governmental organisation; NMA, network meta-analysis.