Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36511470›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2023

Decision Curve Analysis for Personalized Treatment Choice between Multiple Options.

Konstantina Chalkou, Andrew J Vickers, Fabio Pellegrini, Andrea Manca, Georgia Salanti

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Konstantina ChalkouInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9718-021X
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1525-6503
Fabio PellegriniBDH, Biogen Spain, Madrid, Spain.
Andrea MancaCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
SPORE In Prostate CancerP50CA092629 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI David B. Solit · 2001 to 2026
$63.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision curve analysis can be used to determine whether a personalized model for treatment benefit would lead to better clinical decisions. Decision curve analysis methods have been described to estimate treatment benefit using data from a single randomized controlled trial.

objectivesOur main objective is to extend the decision curve analysis methodology to the scenario in which several treatment options exist and evidence about their effects comes from a set of trials, synthesized using network meta-analysis (NMA).

methodsWe describe the steps needed to estimate the net benefit of a prediction model using evidence from studies synthesized in an NMA. We show how to compare personalized versus one-size-fit-all treatment decision-making strategies, such as "treat none" or "treat all patients with a specific treatment" strategies. First, threshold values for each included treatment need to be defined (i.e., the minimum risk difference compared with control that renders a treatment worth taking). The net benefit per strategy can then be plotted for a plausible range of threshold values to reveal the most clinically useful strategy. We applied our methodology to an NMA prediction model for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, which can be used to choose between natalizumab, dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, and placebo.

resultsWe illustrated the extended decision curve analysis methodology using several threshold value combinations for each available treatment. For the examined threshold values, the "treat patients according to the prediction model" strategy performs either better than or close to the one-size-fit-all treatment strategies. However, even small differences may be important in clinical decision making. As the advantage of the personalized model was not consistent across all thresholds, improving the existing model (by including, for example, predictors that will increase discrimination) is needed before advocating its clinical usefulness.

conclusionsThis novel extension of decision curve analysis can be applied to NMA-based prediction models to evaluate their use to aid treatment decision making. HIGHLIGHTS: Decision curve analysis is extended into a (network) meta-analysis framework.Personalized models predicting treatment benefit are evaluated when several treatment options are available and evidence about their effects comes from a set of trials.Detailed steps to compare personalized versus one-size-fit-all treatment decision-making strategies are outlined.This extension of decision curve analysis can be applied to (network) meta-analysis-based prediction models to evaluate their use to aid treatment decision making.

Indexed as

Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingPrecision MedicineClinical Decision-MakingDimethyl FumarateHumansNatalizumabRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDimethyl FumarateNatalizumabclinical usefulnessdecision curve analysisnet benefitnetwork meta-analysisprediction model

Identifiers

PMID36511470
PMCPMC10021120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.