Cargando…

Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis estimates all relative effects between competing treatments and can produce a treatment hierarchy from the most to the least desirable option according to a health outcome. While about half of the published network meta-analyses present such a hierarchy, it is rarel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Papakonstantinou, Theodoros, Salanti, Georgia, Mavridis, Dimitris, Rücker, Gerta, Schwarzer, Guido, Nikolakopoulou, Adriani
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35176997
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01488-3
_version_ 1784653685911977984
author Papakonstantinou, Theodoros
Salanti, Georgia
Mavridis, Dimitris
Rücker, Gerta
Schwarzer, Guido
Nikolakopoulou, Adriani
author_facet Papakonstantinou, Theodoros
Salanti, Georgia
Mavridis, Dimitris
Rücker, Gerta
Schwarzer, Guido
Nikolakopoulou, Adriani
author_sort Papakonstantinou, Theodoros
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis estimates all relative effects between competing treatments and can produce a treatment hierarchy from the most to the least desirable option according to a health outcome. While about half of the published network meta-analyses present such a hierarchy, it is rarely the case that it is related to a clinically relevant decision question. METHODS: We first define treatment hierarchy and treatment ranking in a network meta-analysis and suggest a simulation method to estimate the probability of each possible hierarchy to occur. We then propose a stepwise approach to express clinically relevant decision questions as hierarchy questions and quantify the uncertainty of the criteria that constitute them. The steps of the approach are summarized as follows: a) a question of clinical relevance is defined, b) the hierarchies that satisfy the defined question are collected and c) the frequencies of the respective hierarchies are added; the resulted sum expresses the certainty of the defined set of criteria to hold. We then show how the frequencies of all possible hierarchies relate to common ranking metrics. RESULTS: We exemplify the method and its implementation using two networks. The first is a network of four treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease where the most probable hierarchy has a frequency of 28%. The second is a network of 18 antidepressants, among which Vortioxetine, Bupropion and Escitalopram occupy the first three ranks with frequency 19%. CONCLUSIONS: The developed method offers a generalised approach of producing treatment hierarchies in network meta-analysis, which moves towards attaching treatment ranking to a clear decision question, relevant to all or a subset of competing treatments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8855601
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88556012022-02-23 Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis Papakonstantinou, Theodoros Salanti, Georgia Mavridis, Dimitris Rücker, Gerta Schwarzer, Guido Nikolakopoulou, Adriani BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis estimates all relative effects between competing treatments and can produce a treatment hierarchy from the most to the least desirable option according to a health outcome. While about half of the published network meta-analyses present such a hierarchy, it is rarely the case that it is related to a clinically relevant decision question. METHODS: We first define treatment hierarchy and treatment ranking in a network meta-analysis and suggest a simulation method to estimate the probability of each possible hierarchy to occur. We then propose a stepwise approach to express clinically relevant decision questions as hierarchy questions and quantify the uncertainty of the criteria that constitute them. The steps of the approach are summarized as follows: a) a question of clinical relevance is defined, b) the hierarchies that satisfy the defined question are collected and c) the frequencies of the respective hierarchies are added; the resulted sum expresses the certainty of the defined set of criteria to hold. We then show how the frequencies of all possible hierarchies relate to common ranking metrics. RESULTS: We exemplify the method and its implementation using two networks. The first is a network of four treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease where the most probable hierarchy has a frequency of 28%. The second is a network of 18 antidepressants, among which Vortioxetine, Bupropion and Escitalopram occupy the first three ranks with frequency 19%. CONCLUSIONS: The developed method offers a generalised approach of producing treatment hierarchies in network meta-analysis, which moves towards attaching treatment ranking to a clear decision question, relevant to all or a subset of competing treatments. BioMed Central 2022-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8855601/ /pubmed/35176997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01488-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Papakonstantinou, Theodoros
Salanti, Georgia
Mavridis, Dimitris
Rücker, Gerta
Schwarzer, Guido
Nikolakopoulou, Adriani
Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis
title Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis
title_full Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis
title_short Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis
title_sort answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35176997
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01488-3
work_keys_str_mv AT papakonstantinoutheodoros answeringcomplexhierarchyquestionsinnetworkmetaanalysis
AT salantigeorgia answeringcomplexhierarchyquestionsinnetworkmetaanalysis
AT mavridisdimitris answeringcomplexhierarchyquestionsinnetworkmetaanalysis
AT ruckergerta answeringcomplexhierarchyquestionsinnetworkmetaanalysis
AT schwarzerguido answeringcomplexhierarchyquestionsinnetworkmetaanalysis
AT nikolakopoulouadriani answeringcomplexhierarchyquestionsinnetworkmetaanalysis