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

Network meta-analysis (NMA) helps compare multiple treatments for chronic migraine. It combines direct and indirect evidence when head-to-head trials are missing. Guidelines exist for conducting and reporting NMAs, but they are often ignored. This paper reviews key guidelines and critiques two recent NMAs in chronic migraine. These studies did not follow the recommended practices properly. While the shortcomings found may not reflect all NMAs in neurology, they raise concerns. Readers should be cautious when interpreting systematic reviews and NMAs. Evaluating the methods and data used is essential for understanding the findings. This approach ensures that patients receive accurate information about treatment options. Overall, the paper emphasizes the need for adherence to guidelines. Better compliance could improve the reliability of NMAs in chronic migraine research. By prioritizing quality, we can enhance treatment decision-making for patients suffering from migraines. Clinical relevance: This review highlights the importance of following guidelines in migraine research, ensuring patients receive reliable treatment information and improving outcomes.