Using decision thresholds for ranking treatments in network meta-analysis results in more informative rankings

To evaluate how the rank probabilities obtained from network meta-analysis (NMA) change with the use of increasingly stringent criteria for the relative effect comparing two treatments which ranks one treatment better than the other. Systematic survey and reanalysis of published data. We included al...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2018-06, Vol.98, p.62-69
Main Authors: Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Johnston, Bradley C., Jadad, Alejandro R., Tomlinson, George
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anticoagulants
Beta blockers
Cardiac arrhythmia
Cardiovascular disease
Clinical trials
Decision analysis
Decision threshold
Diabetes
Diuretics
Drug dosages
Epidemiology
Meta-analysis
Mortality
Network meta-analysis
Probability
Rank probabilities
Rankings
Results interpretation
Reviews
Sensitivity analysis
Stroke
Systematic review
Systematic survey
Thresholds
Thromboembolism
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To evaluate how the rank probabilities obtained from network meta-analysis (NMA) change with the use of increasingly stringent criteria for the relative effect comparing two treatments which ranks one treatment better than the other. Systematic survey and reanalysis of published data. We included all systematic reviews (SRs) with NMA from the field of cardiovascular medicine that had trial-level data available, published in Medline up to February 2015. We reran all the NMAs and determined the probabilities of each treatment being the best. For the best treatment, we examined the effect on these probabilities of varying, what we call the decision threshold, the relative effect required to declare two treatments different. We included 14 SRs, having a median of 20 randomized trials and 9 treatments. The best treatments had probabilities of being best that ranged from 38% to 85.3%. The effect of changing the decision thresholds on the probability of a treatment being best varied substantially across reviews, with relatively little decrease (∼20 percentage points) in some settings but a decline to near 0% in others. Rank probabilities can be fragile to increases in the decision threshold used to claim that one treatment is more effective than another. Including these thresholds into the calculation of rankings may aid their interpretation and use in clinical practice.
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.008