'Summary of findings' tables in network meta-analysis (NMA)

Transcription

1 'Summary of findings' tables in network meta-analysis (NMA) Juan José Yepes-Nuñez MD, MSc, PhD candidate Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Canada Professor, School of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Colombia Holger J Schünemann MD, PhD, MSc, FRCP(C) Chair, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly "Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics") Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Medicine Michael Gent Chair in Healthcare Research Director, Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE Centre. McMaster University, Canada

2 Outline Part 1. Learning objective and introduction to NMA - Objective - What is an NMA - Ranking of treatments - NMA certainty in evidence assessment - Summary of Findings (SoF) tables in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis 2

3 Outline Part 2. NMA-SoF table Introduction to the NMA-SoF table project Part 3. NMA-SoF table examples Part 4. Q&A 3

4 Part 1 LEARNING OBJECTIVE AND INTRODUCTION TO NMA 4

5 Learning objective To gain familiarity in interpreting findings of network meta-analysis (NMA) through NMA Summary of findings (SoF) tables developed based on principles of the approach to rating certainty of evidence from NMAs 5

6 WHAT IS AN NMA? 6

7 Introduction to NMA Absence of direct comparison between A and B Bupropion A B Nicotine replacement therapy C Placebo 7

8 Introduction to NMA 1 RCT OR= 0.48 ( ) Combined Direct vs. Indirect OR= 0.68 ( ) Bupropion A 9 RCTs OR= 0.51 ( ) 28 RCTs OR= 0.90 ( ) B 19 RCTs OR= 0.57 ( ) Nicotine replacement therapy C Placebo 8

9 WHAT ARE RANKING TREATMENTS? 9

10 Ranking Treatments Graphical 10

11 Ranking Treatments Numerical SUCRA Median and 95% CrI for the rank of each treatment 11

12 HOW TO ASSESS NMA CERTAINTY (QUALITY) IN EVIDENCE WITH? 12

13 Grading system in health-care to assess the quality (or certainty) of evidence and strength of recommendations Systematic Reviews Clinical practice guidelines

14 Determinants of certainty in a body of evidence GRADE A body of evidence starts as: high 5 factors that can lower quality 1. Risk of bias criteria Lack of randomization (non-randomized or observational studies) lowers confidence to low 2. Inconsistency (or heterogeneity) 3. Indirectness (PICO and applicability) 4. Imprecision 5. Publication bias

15 Determinants of certainty in a body of evidence: GRADE 3 factors can increase quality 1. large magnitude of effect 2. opposing plausible residual bias or confounding 3. dose-response gradient

16 NMA certainty in evidence High certainty and direct evidence contributes as much as indirect evidence Rate CiE direct estimates Rate CiE indirect estimates Rate CiE NMA estimates Risk of Bias Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Transitivity Lowest of the ratings of the two direct comparisons forming the most dominant first-order loop Incoherence Imprecision Not sufficient evidence, moderate, low or very low certainty 16

17 SUMMARY of FINDINGS (SoF) TABLES IN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES 17

18 SoF tables in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Elements of a SoF table 18

19 SoF tables in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Elements of a SoF table 19

20 SoF tables in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Elements of a SoF table 20

21 Part 2 NMA-SOF TABLE Introduction to the NMA-SoF table project NMA SoF table format 21

22 NMA-SoF TABLE: WHY? 22

23 Introduction NMA-SoF table project No standardized Network metanalysis (NMA) Summary of Findings (SoF) table format 23

24 Introduction NMA-SoF table project Brainstorm meeting Initial development New version NMA-SoF table Input from interviews, and Input from advisory group Round 1 and 2 New version NMA-SoF table Input from interviews, and Input from advisory group Brainstorm meeting Round 3 New version NMA-SoF table Input from interviews, and Input from advisory group Round 4 Input from interviews, and Input from advisory group FINAL version NMA-SoF table 24

25 WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL PRESENTATION OF RESULTS OF NMA REPORTS? 25

26 PICO information Interpretation of findings NMA graphic Ranking treatments Data presentation Certainty of evidence 26

27 NMA-SoF TABLE FORMAT 27

28 NMA-SoF table example 1 28

29 NMA-SoF table example 1 29

30 NMA-SoF table example 1 30

31 NMA-SoF table example 2 31

32 NMA-SoF table example 2 32

33 NMA-SoF table example 2 33

34 NMA-SoF table example 2 34

35 NMA-SoF table example 2 35

36 Drawing conclusions from NMA

37 NMA-SoF table example 3 37

38 Wrapping up 38

39 Our NMA-SoF table captures the complexity of the information reported in a NMA publication while maximizing simplicity to achieve a user-friendly presentation. In a single NMA-SoF table we report relevant information that the literature described as important for NMA findings, including certainty of evidence, and ranking. Further experience with users may result in modifications to the current table, or the development of alternative formats. 39

40 Learning objective To gain familiarity in interpreting findings of network meta-analysis (NMA) through NMA Summary of findings (SoF) tables developed based on principles of the approach to rating certainty of evidence from NMAs 40

41 Part 4 QUESTIONS 41

42 Acknowledgements Holger Schünemann Shelly-Anne Li Susan M. Jack Gordon Guyatt Jan L. Brozek Joseph Beyene M. Hassan Murad Bram Rochwerg Lawrence Mbuagbaw Reem Mustafa Nancy Santesso 42

43 Acknowledgements To all of participants of the interviews that with their knowledge and feedback helped us to create a NMA-SoF table 43

44 Contact: Juan José Yepes-Nuñez and Holger J Schünemann holger.schunemann@mcmaster.ca

45 References Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. Bmj. 2014;349:g5630. Brignardello-Petersen R, Bonner A, Alexander PE, Siemieniuk RA, Furukawa TA, Rochwerg B, et al. Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;93: Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profilescontinuous outcomes. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(2): Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2011;14(4): Trinquart L, Attiche N, Bafeta A, Porcher R, Ravaud P. Uncertainty in Treatment Rankings: Reanalysis of Network Meta-analyses of Randomized Trials. Annals of internal medicine. 2016;164(10):

46 References 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. Systematic reviews. 2017;6(1):79. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Annals of internal medicine. 2015;162(11): Foote CJ, Chaudhry H, Bhandari M, Thabane L, Furukawa TA, Petrisor B, et al. Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part I - Credibility. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2015;473(7): Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multipletreatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Research synthesis methods. 2012;3(2): Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(2): Chaudhry H, Foote CJ, Guyatt G, Thabane L, Furukawa TA, Petrisor B, et al. Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2015;473(7):