Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35176997›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis.

Theodoros Papakonstantinou, Georgia Salanti, Dimitris Mavridis, Gerta Rücker, Guido Schwarzer, Adriani Nikolakopoulou

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Theodoros PapakonstantinouInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Dimitris MavridisDepartment of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Gerta RückerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Guido SchwarzerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Adriani NikolakopoulouInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. nikolakopoulou@imbi.uni-freiburg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNetwork 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsWe 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%.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Antidepressive AgentsHumansAntidepressive AgentsClinically relevant questionEvidence synthesisIndirect evidenceProbabilistic ranking

Identifiers

PMID35176997
PMCPMC8855601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.