Supplementary material: Considerations for understanding systematic reviews and network meta-analyses in neurological applications: a review and critique in chronic migraine

<p dir="ltr"><b>This is a peer-reviewed graphical abstract for the article</b><b> </b><b>'</b><b>Considerations for understanding </b><b>systematic reviews and network </b><b>meta-analyses in neurological applications: </b><b>a review and critique in chronic migraine</b><b>'</b><b> </b><b>published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.</i></b></p><ul><li><b>Table S1: </b>Citations of records identified in PubMed search</li><li><b>Figure S1: </b>Flow diagram of identified and screened records for NMA narrative critical review</li></ul><p dir="ltr">Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an evidence synthesis approach that combines direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative effects of multiple treatments, including comparisons for which head-tohead clinical trial evidence is unavailable.

Although methodological and reporting guidelines for NMAs and their accompanying systematic reviews are well established, we posit that such guidelines are not always followed in practice. In this narrative perspective, we provide a concise overview of key guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and NMAs and critically appraise two recent NMAs in chronic migraine that deviate from these recommendations.