Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40542622›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

Precision of Treatment Hierarchy: A Metric for Quantifying Certainty in Treatment Hierarchies From Network Meta-Analysis.

Augustine Wigle, Audrey Béliveau, Georgia Salanti, Gerta Rücker, Guido Schwarzer, Dimitris Mavridis, Adriani Nikolakopoulou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of Multiple Interventions for Moderate to Large Traumatic Tympanic Membrane Perforations: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. 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

7 authors.

Augustine WigleDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Audrey BéliveauDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4124-2498
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Gerta RückerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2192-2560
Guido SchwarzerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Dimitris MavridisDepartment of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Adriani NikolakopoulouInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft NI 2226/1-1Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation 015467Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada CGS-D 569445-2022Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada CGS-MSFSS 588256-2023Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN 2019-04404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of pairwise meta-analysis that facilitates the estimation of relative effects for multiple competing treatments. A hierarchy of treatments is a useful output of an NMA. Treatment hierarchies are produced using ranking metrics. Common ranking metrics include the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) and P-scores, which are the frequentist analogue to SUCRAs. Both metrics consider the size and uncertainty of the estimated treatment effects, with larger values indicating a more preferred treatment. Although SUCRAs and P-scores themselves consider uncertainty, treatment hierarchies produced by these ranking metrics are typically reported without a measure of certainty, which might be misleading to practitioners. We propose a new metric, Precision of Treatment Hierarchy (POTH), which quantifies the certainty in producing a treatment hierarchy from SUCRAs or P-scores. The metric connects three statistical quantities: The variance of the SUCRA values, the variance of the mean rank of each treatment, and the average variance of the distribution of individual ranks for each treatment. POTH provides a single, interpretable value that quantifies the extent of certainty in producing a treatment hierarchy. We show how the metric can be adapted to apply to subsets of treatments in a network, for example, to quantify the certainty in the hierarchy of the top three treatments. We calculate POTH for a database of NMAs to investigate its empirical properties, and we demonstrate its use on two published networks.

Indexed as

Network Meta-Analysis as TopicComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalTreatment OutcomeUncertaintynetwork meta‐analysisP‐scorerankingsurface under the cumulative ranking curvetreatment hierarchyuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40542622
PMCPMC12181804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.