Table 2

Characteristics of knowledge user respondents and familiarity with NMAs

Primary and current roles*
 Systematic reviewer136 (45.6%)
 Academic122 (40.9%)
 Clinician or healthcare professionals98 (32.9%)
 Graduate student/postdoctoral researcher60 (25.1%)
 Epidemiologist54 (18.1%)
 Guideline developer44 (14.8%)
 Independent researcher42 (14.1%)
 HTA producer or specialist39 (13.1%)
 Statistician38 (12.8%)
 Journal editor31 (10.4%)
 Research support19 (6.4%)
 Decision/Policymaker9 (3.0%)
 Information scientist/Medical librarian6 (2.0%)
 Funding agency representative and clinician3 (1.0%)
 Patient partner3 (1.0%)
 Other (methodologist, non-profit organisation worker, knowledge translation specialist, scientific officer, health economist, etc)11 (3.7%)
Primary affiliation
 University149 (50.0%)
 Hospital and university hospital61 (20.5%)
 Research institute25 (8.4%)
 Government19 (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 America121 (40.6%)
 Europe101 (33.9%)
 Asia50 (16.8%)
 South America17 (5.7%)
 Africa2 (0.67%)
 Pacific Islands1 (0.34%)
 Australia4 (1.3%)
 Other (ie, Middle East, Oceania)2 (0.67%)
Does your organisation or institution (or work colleagues) produce systematic reviews with NMA?
 Yes223 (75.1%)
 Unsure32 (10.8%)
 No42 (14.1%)
 Missing1 (0.3%)
Have you used systematic reviews with NMA as a source of evidence in decision making?
 Yes193 (65.4%)
 No73 (24.7%)
 Unsure29 (9.83%)
 Missing3 (1.0%)
Have you used a systematic review with NMA in your work?
 Yes160 (54.2%)
 No160 (54.2%)
 Unsure75 (25.4%)
 Missing3 (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 conclusions127 (57.7%)
 Individual analysis results from the NMA to draw your own conclusions (eg, pooled effect estimate)72 (32.7%)
 NMA authors’ conclusions21 (9.55%)
 Missing78 (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.