Beading plot: a novel graphics for ranking interventions in network evidence.
Decision-making
Network meta-analysis
Statistic plot
Treatment ranking
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Oct 2024
09 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
19
09
2023
accepted:
27
09
2024
medline:
10
10
2024
pubmed:
10
10
2024
entrez:
9
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Network meta-analysis is developed to compare all available treatments; therefore it enriches evidence for clinical decision-making, offering insights into treatment effectiveness and safety when faced with multiple options. However, the complexity and numerous treatment comparisons in network meta-analysis can challenge healthcare providers and patients. The purpose of this study aimed to introduce a graphic design to present complex rankings of multiple interventions comprehensively. Our team members developed a "beading plot" to summary probability of achieving the best treatment (P-best) and global metrics including surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and P-score. Implemented via the "rankinma" R package, this tool summarizes rankings across diverse outcomes in network meta-analyses, and the package received an official release on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). It includes the `PlotBead()` function for generating beading plots, which represent treatment rankings among various outcomes. Beading plot has been designed based on number line plot, which effectively displays collective metrics for each treatment across various outcomes. Order on the -axis is derived from ranking metrics like P-best, SUCRA, and P-score. Continuous lines represent outcomes, and color-coded beads signify treatments. The beading plot is a valuable graphic that intuitively displays treatment rankings across diverse outcomes, enhancing reader-friendliness and aiding decision-making in complex network evidence scenarios. While empowering clinicians and patients to identify optimal treatments, it should be used cautiously, alongside an assessment of the overall evidence certainty.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Network meta-analysis is developed to compare all available treatments; therefore it enriches evidence for clinical decision-making, offering insights into treatment effectiveness and safety when faced with multiple options. However, the complexity and numerous treatment comparisons in network meta-analysis can challenge healthcare providers and patients. The purpose of this study aimed to introduce a graphic design to present complex rankings of multiple interventions comprehensively.
METHODS
METHODS
Our team members developed a "beading plot" to summary probability of achieving the best treatment (P-best) and global metrics including surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and P-score. Implemented via the "rankinma" R package, this tool summarizes rankings across diverse outcomes in network meta-analyses, and the package received an official release on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). It includes the `PlotBead()` function for generating beading plots, which represent treatment rankings among various outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Beading plot has been designed based on number line plot, which effectively displays collective metrics for each treatment across various outcomes. Order on the -axis is derived from ranking metrics like P-best, SUCRA, and P-score. Continuous lines represent outcomes, and color-coded beads signify treatments.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The beading plot is a valuable graphic that intuitively displays treatment rankings across diverse outcomes, enhancing reader-friendliness and aiding decision-making in complex network evidence scenarios. While empowering clinicians and patients to identify optimal treatments, it should be used cautiously, alongside an assessment of the overall evidence certainty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39385093
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02355-7
pii: 10.1186/s12874-024-02355-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
235Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(5):607–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x12458724 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989x12458724
Shi J, Gao Y, Ming L, Yang K, Sun Y, Chen J, et al. A bibliometric analysis of global research output on network meta-analysis. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01470-5 .
doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01470-5
Catalá-López F, Tobías A, Cameron C, Moher D, Hutton B. Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction. Rheumatol Int. 2014;34:1489–96.
doi: 10.1007/s00296-014-2994-2
pubmed: 24691560
Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.
doi: 10.1002/sim.1201
pubmed: 12210616
White IR. Network meta-analysis. Stata J. 2015;15(4):951–85.
doi: 10.1177/1536867X1501500403
Phillips MR, Steel DH, Wykoff CC, Busse JW, Bannuru RR, Thabane L, et al. A clinician’s guide to network meta-analysis. Eye. 2022;36(8):1523–6.
doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-01943-5
pubmed: 35145277
pmcid: 9307840
Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li T. Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12:103–11.
doi: 10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7
pubmed: 27913917
Yang A, Pechlivanoglou P, Aoyama K. Interpreting and assessing confidence in network meta-analysis results: an introduction for clinicians. J Anesth. 2022;36(4):524–31.
doi: 10.1007/s00540-022-03072-5
pubmed: 35641661
pmcid: 9338903
Kanters S, Ford N, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ, Bansback N. Use of network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(10):782–4. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.16.174326 .
doi: 10.2471/blt.16.174326
pubmed: 27843171
pmcid: 5043215
Pacou M, Taieb V, Belhadi D, Mesana L, Gauthier A. Interpreting results from bayesian network Meta-analyses (Nma): a guide for non-statisticians. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A718–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2720 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2720
Daly CH, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L, Straus SE, Hamid JS. Spie charts for quantifying treatment effectiveness and safety in multiple outcome network meta-analysis: a proof-of-concept study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01128-2
Eiring Ø, Brurberg KG, Nytrøen K, Nylenna M. Rapid methods including network meta-analysis to produce evidence in clinical decision support: a decision analysis. Syst Reviews. 2018;7(1):168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0829-z .
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0829-z
Rücker G, Schwarzer G. Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8
pubmed: 26227148
pmcid: 4521472
Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
pubmed: 20688472
van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zhao J, de Brock B, Hillege HL, Postmus D. Multicriteria benefit–risk assessment using network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(4):394–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.005
pubmed: 22197518
Virginia C, Ian RW, Georgia S. The complexity underlying treatment rankings: how to use them and what to look at. BMJ Evidence-Based Med. 2023;28(3):180. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111904 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111904
Datta NR, Stutz E, Gomez S, Bodis S. Efficacy and safety evaluation of the various therapeutic options in locally advanced cervix cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Radiation Oncology* Biology* Phys. 2019;103(2):411–37.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.09.037
Hahn AW, Klaassen Z, Agarwal N, Haaland B, Esther J, Xiang YY, et al. First-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(6):708–15.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.09.002
pubmed: 31588018
Shen Loo Y, Yee Wong T, Veettil SK, Se Wong P, Gopinath D, Mooi Ching S, et al. Antifungal agents in preventing oral candidiasis in clinical oncology: a network meta-analysis. Oral Dis. 2021;27(7):1631–43.
doi: 10.1111/odi.13588
pubmed: 32762108
Mbuagbaw L, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, Heels-Andsell D, Alhazzani W, Thabane L, et al. Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Reviews. 2017;6(1):79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0473-z .
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0473-z
Nevill CR, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ. A multifaceted graphical display, including treatment ranking, was developed to aid interpretation of network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;157:83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.016
pubmed: 36870376
Seo M, Furukawa TA, Veroniki AA, Pillinger T, Tomlinson A, Salanti G, et al. The Kilim plot: a tool for visualizing network meta-analysis results for multiple outcomes. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(1):86–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1428 .
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1428
pubmed: 32524754
Chen C, Kang E, Hou W, Chen J, Chuang Y. E C: rankinma: ranking in Network Meta-Analysis. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rankinma (2024). Accessed.
Chaimani A, Higgins JPT, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076654 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076654
pubmed: 24098547
pmcid: 3789683
van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zwinkels T, de Brock B, Hillege H. ADDIS: a decision support system for evidence-based medicine. Decis Support Syst. 2013;55(2):459–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.005
Chaimani A, Salanti G. Visualizing assumptions and results in network meta-analysis: the network graphs package. Stata J. 2015;15(4):905–50.
doi: 10.1177/1536867X1501500402
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Nikolakopoulou A, Papakonstantinou T, Salanti G, Efthimiou O, et al. Netmeta: an R package for network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. J Stat Softw. 2023;106:1–40.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v106.i02
Veroniki AA, Straus SE, Fyraridis A, Tricco AC. The rank-heat plot is a novel way to present the results from a network meta-analysis including multiple outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:193–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.016
pubmed: 26939929
Kang YN, Ho YW, Chu W, Chou WS, Cheng SH. Effects and Safety of Lumbar Fusion Techniques in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized controlled trials. Global Spine J. 2022;12(3):493–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568221997804 .
doi: 10.1177/2192568221997804
pubmed: 33752459
Salanti G, Nikolakopoulou A, Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Egger M, White IR. Introducing the treatment Hierarchy question in Network Meta-Analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;191(5):930–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwab278 .
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab278
pmcid: 9071581
Chi K-Y, Li M-Y, Chen C, Kang E, Cochrane T. Ten circumstances and solutions for finding the sample mean and standard deviation for meta-analysis. Syst Reviews. 2023;12(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02217-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02217-1
Hsieh PH, Yang TC, Kang EY, Lee PC, Luo JC, Huang YH, et al. Impact of nutritional support routes on mortality in acute pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Intern Med. 2024;295(6):759–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.13782 .
doi: 10.1111/joim.13782
pubmed: 38561603
Lee CC, Chen YW, Kang YN, Chen JH, Chen C, Lu CY, et al. Efficacy of natural products in preventing oral mucositis resulting from cancer therapies: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2024;199:104373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104373 .
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104373
pubmed: 38710295