» Articles » PMID: 35176997

Answering Complex Hierarchy Questions in Network Meta-analysis

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2022 Feb 18
PMID 35176997
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Ranking of treatments in network meta-analysis: incorporating minimally important differences.

Curteis T, Wigle A, Michaels C, Nikolakopoulou A BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25(1):67.

PMID: 40065217 PMC: 11892231. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02499-0.


Answering complex hierarchy questions in network meta-analysis.

Papakonstantinou T, Salanti G, Mavridis D, Rucker G, Schwarzer G, Nikolakopoulou A BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):47.

PMID: 35176997 PMC: 8855601. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01488-3.

References
1.
Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Buskens E, Hillege H, Postmus D . A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis. Stat Med. 2011; 30(12):1419-28. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4194. View

2.
Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Cipriani A, Leucht S, Bagos P, Salanti G . An approach for modelling multiple correlated outcomes in a network of interventions using odds ratios. Stat Med. 2014; 33(13):2275-87. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6117. View

3.
Brignardello-Petersen R, Johnston B, Jadad A, Tomlinson G . Using decision thresholds for ranking treatments in network meta-analysis results in more informative rankings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 98:62-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.008. View

4.
Tervonen T, Naci H, van Valkenhoef G, Ades A, Angelis A, Hillege H . Applying Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment: Choosing among Statins in Primary Prevention. Med Decis Making. 2015; 35(7):859-71. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15587005. View

5.
Lu G, Welton N, Higgins J, White I, Ades A . Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: A two-stage approach. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 2(1):43-60. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.34. View