Abstract

When interpreting the relative effects from a network meta‐analysis (NMA), researchers are usually aware of the potential limitations that may render the results for some comparisons less useful or meaningless. In the presence of sufficient and appropriate data, some of these limitations (eg, risk of bias, small‐study effects, publication bias) can be taken into account in the statistical analysis. Very often, though, the necessary data for applying these methods are missing and data limitations cannot be formally integrated into ranking. In addition, there are other important characteristics of the treatment comparisons that cannot be addressed within a statistical model but only through qualitative judgments; for example, the relevance of data to the research question, the plausibility of the assumptions, and so on. Here, we propose a new measure for treatment ranking called the Probability of Selecting a Treatment to Recommend (POST‐R). We suggest that the order of treatments should represent the process of considering treatments for selection in clinical practice and we assign to each treatment a probability of being selected. This process can be considered as a Markov chain model that allows the end‐users of NMA to select the most appropriate treatments based not only on the NMA results but also to information external to the NMA. In this way, we obtain rankings that can inform decision‐making more efficiently as they represent not only the relative effects but also their potential limitations. We illustrate our approach using a NMA comparing treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis and we provide the Stata commands.

Highlights

  • Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides the highest possible level of evidence for the development of clinical guidelines and several health care organizations already incorporate NMA findings in their guidance

  • The 19 different systemic treatments are very diverse in terms of their cost; we considered treatment cost as an important characteristic to be incorporated in treatment ranking

  • Treatment ranking is a key and potentially very informative output of NMA but inappropriate use and misinterpretation of ranking, which are regularly encountered in published NMAs, have made several researchers being skeptical about its usefulness.[1,5,6]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides the highest possible level of evidence for the development of clinical guidelines and several health care organizations already incorporate NMA findings in their guidance. Treatment ranking has gained much attention as well as a lot of criticism over the last years.[1,2,3,4] The main criticisms are: (a) methods widely used in the literature have focused on the probability of each treatment being the best without taking into account the whole ranking distribution and have produced misleading results,[5,6] (b) ranking is a very influential output and interpretation in isolation from relative effects may lead to spurious conclusions,[7] and (c) ranking of treatments most often is not interpreted in light of the limitations of the evidence base (such as risk of bias or insufficient evidence). The two measures are equivalent and differ only in that SUCRAs are obtained using resampling methods while P-scores are derived analytically.[9] Their main advantage is that they account for the variability in treatment ranks by considering the magnitude of relative effects and their uncertainty and overlap of their confidence/credible intervals

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.