Characteristics of knowledge user respondents and familiarity with NMAs
| Characteristics | Overall (n=298) |
| Primary and current roles* | |
| Systematic reviewer | 136 (45.6%) |
| Academic | 122 (40.9%) |
| Clinician or healthcare professionals | 98 (32.9%) |
| Graduate student/postdoctoral researcher | 60 (25.1%) |
| Epidemiologist | 54 (18.1%) |
| Guideline developer | 44 (14.8%) |
| Independent researcher | 42 (14.1%) |
| HTA producer or specialist | 39 (13.1%) |
| Statistician | 38 (12.8%) |
| Journal editor | 31 (10.4%) |
| Research support | 19 (6.4%) |
| Decision/Policymaker | 9 (3.0%) |
| Information scientist/Medical librarian | 6 (2.0%) |
| Funding agency representative and clinician | 3 (1.0%) |
| Patient partner | 3 (1.0%) |
| Other (methodologist, non-profit organisation worker, knowledge translation specialist, scientific officer, health economist, etc) | 11 (3.7%) |
| Primary affiliation | |
| University | 149 (50.0%) |
| Hospital and university hospital | 61 (20.5%) |
| Research institute | 25 (8.4%) |
| Government | 19 (6.4%) |
| Non-profit organisation (eg, NGO, charity) | 23 (7.7%) |
| For-profit private organisation (eg, industry) | 10 (3.4%) |
| Other (eg, clinic, HTA organisation, blood service, independent researcher) | 11 (3.7%) |
| Geographic region | |
| North America/Central America | 121 (40.6%) |
| Europe | 101 (33.9%) |
| Asia | 50 (16.8%) |
| South America | 17 (5.7%) |
| Africa | 2 (0.67%) |
| Pacific Islands | 1 (0.34%) |
| Australia | 4 (1.3%) |
| Other (ie, Middle East, Oceania) | 2 (0.67%) |
| Does your organisation or institution (or work colleagues) produce systematic reviews with NMA? | |
| Yes | 223 (75.1%) |
| Unsure | 32 (10.8%) |
| No | 42 (14.1%) |
| Missing | 1 (0.3%) |
| Have you used systematic reviews with NMA as a source of evidence in decision making? | |
| Yes | 193 (65.4%) |
| No | 73 (24.7%) |
| Unsure | 29 (9.83%) |
| Missing | 3 (1.0%) |
| Have you used a systematic review with NMA in your work? | |
| Yes | 160 (54.2%) |
| No | 160 (54.2%) |
| Unsure | 75 (25.4%) |
| Missing | 3 (1.0%) |
| If you have used one or more systematic reviews with NMA in your work, did you use: | |
| Both individual results of NMAs and conclusions | 127 (57.7%) |
| Individual analysis results from the NMA to draw your own conclusions (eg, pooled effect estimate) | 72 (32.7%) |
| NMA authors’ conclusions | 21 (9.55%) |
| Missing | 78 (26.2%) |
*Percentages add to >100% because respondents could provide more than one response.
HTA, heath technology assessment; NGO, non-governmental organisation; NMA, network meta-analysis.