Network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizes all available direct (head-to-head) and indirect evidence on the comparative effectiveness of at least three treatments and provides coherent estimates of their relative effects. Ranking probabilities are commonly used to summarize these estimates and provide comparative rankings of treatments. However, the reliability of ranking probabilities as summary measures has not been formally established and treatments are often ranked for each outcome separately. This thesis aims to address methodological gaps and limitations in current literature by providing alternative methods for evaluating the robustness of treatment ranks, establishing comparative rankings, and integrating ranking probabilities across multiple outcomes. These novel tools, addressing three specific objectives, are developed in three papers.
The first paper presents a conceptual framework for quantifying the robustness of treatments ranks and for elucidating potential sources of lack of robustness. Cohen’s kappa is proposed for quantifying the agreement between two sets of ranks based on NMAs of the full data and a subset of the data. A leave one-study-out strategy was used to illustrate the framework with empirical data from published NMAs, where ranks based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were considered. Recommendations for using this strategy to evaluate sensitivity or robustness to concerning evidence are given.
When two or more cumulative ranking curves cross, treatments with large probabilities of ranking the best, second best, third best, etc. may rank worse than treatments with smaller corresponding probabilities based on SUCRA. This limitation of SUCRA is addressed in the second paper through the proposal of partial SUCRA (pSUCRA) as an alternative measure for ranking treatments. pSUCRA is adopted from the partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic medicine and is derived to summarize relevant regions of the cumulative ranking curve.
Knowledge users are often faced with the challenge of making sense of large volumes of NMA results presented across multiple outcomes. This may be further complicated if the comparative rankings on each outcome contradict each other, leading to subjective final decisions. The third paper addresses this limitation through a comprehensive methodological framework for integrating treatments’ ranking probabilities across multiple outcomes. The framework relies on the area inside spie charts representing treatments’ performances on all outcomes, while also incorporating the outcomes’ relative importance. This approach not only provides an objective measure of the comparative ranking of treatments across multiple outcomes, but also allows graphical presentation of the results, thereby facilitating straightforward interpretation.
All contributions in this thesis provide objective means to improve the use of comparative treatment rankings in NMA. Further extensive evaluations of these tools are required to assess their validity in empirical and simulated networks of different size and sparseness. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Decisions on how to best treat a patient should be informed by all relevant evidence comparing the benefits and harms of available options. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical method for combining evidence on at least three treatments and produces a coherent set of results. Nevertheless, NMA results are typically presented separately for each health outcome (e.g., length of hospital stay, mortality) and the volume of results can be overwhelming to a knowledge user. Moreover, the results can be contradictory across multiple outcomes. Statistics that facilitate the ranking of treatments may aid in easing this interpretative burden while limiting subjectivity. This thesis aims to address methodological gaps and limitations in current ranking approaches by providing alternative methods for evaluating the robustness of treatment ranks, establishing comparative rankings, and integrating ranking probabilities across multiple outcomes. These
contributions provide objective means to improve the use of comparative treatment rankings in NMA.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/26008 |
| Date | January 2020 |
| Creators | Daly, Caitlin Helen |
| Contributors | Hamid, Jemila S, Health Research Methodology |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds