Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods for Optimal Treatment Selection in Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/0272989X221126678
Ioannis Bellos
{"title":"Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods for Optimal Treatment Selection in Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ioannis Bellos","doi":"10.1177/0272989X221126678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Network meta-analysis exploits randomized data to compare multiple interventions and generate rankings. Selecting an optimal treatment may be complicated when multiple conflicting outcomes are evaluated in parallel.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The present study suggested the incorporation of multicriteria decision-making methods in network meta-analyses to select the best intervention when multiple outcomes are of interest by creating partial and absolute rankings with the TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE algorithms. The TOPSIS and VIKOR techniques represent distance-based methods for compromise intervention selection, whereas the PROMETHEE analysis method allows the definition of preference and indifference thresholds. In addition, the PROMETHEE technique allows a variety of modeling options by selecting alternative preference functions. Different weights may be applied to outcomes objectively with the entropy method as well as subjectively with the analytic hierarchy process, enabling the individualization of treatment choice depending on the clinical scenario.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Visualization of decision analysis may be performed with multicriteria score-adjusted scatterplots, while league tables may be constructed to depict the PROMETHEE I partial ordering of interventions. A simulated study was performed assuming equal weights of outcomes, and the TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE II methods were compared using a similarity coefficient, indicating a high degree of agreement among methods, especially with higher numbers of interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multicriteria decision analysis provides a flexible and computationally direct way of selecting compromise interventions and visualizing treatment selection in network meta-analyses. Further research should provide empirical data about the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis in real-world network meta-analyses aiming to define the most suitable method depending on the clinical question.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Multicriteria decision-making methods can be implemented in network meta-analysis to indicate compromise interventions.The TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE methods can be used for optimal treatment selection when conflicting outcomes are evaluated.The weights of outcomes can be defined objectively or subjectively, reflecting the priorities of the decision maker.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 1","pages":"78-90"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X221126678","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Network meta-analysis exploits randomized data to compare multiple interventions and generate rankings. Selecting an optimal treatment may be complicated when multiple conflicting outcomes are evaluated in parallel.

Design: The present study suggested the incorporation of multicriteria decision-making methods in network meta-analyses to select the best intervention when multiple outcomes are of interest by creating partial and absolute rankings with the TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE algorithms. The TOPSIS and VIKOR techniques represent distance-based methods for compromise intervention selection, whereas the PROMETHEE analysis method allows the definition of preference and indifference thresholds. In addition, the PROMETHEE technique allows a variety of modeling options by selecting alternative preference functions. Different weights may be applied to outcomes objectively with the entropy method as well as subjectively with the analytic hierarchy process, enabling the individualization of treatment choice depending on the clinical scenario.

Results: Visualization of decision analysis may be performed with multicriteria score-adjusted scatterplots, while league tables may be constructed to depict the PROMETHEE I partial ordering of interventions. A simulated study was performed assuming equal weights of outcomes, and the TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE II methods were compared using a similarity coefficient, indicating a high degree of agreement among methods, especially with higher numbers of interventions.

Conclusions: Multicriteria decision analysis provides a flexible and computationally direct way of selecting compromise interventions and visualizing treatment selection in network meta-analyses. Further research should provide empirical data about the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis in real-world network meta-analyses aiming to define the most suitable method depending on the clinical question.

Highlights: Multicriteria decision-making methods can be implemented in network meta-analysis to indicate compromise interventions.The TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE methods can be used for optimal treatment selection when conflicting outcomes are evaluated.The weights of outcomes can be defined objectively or subjectively, reflecting the priorities of the decision maker.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
网络元分析中最优治疗选择的多准则决策方法。
背景:网络荟萃分析利用随机数据来比较多种干预措施并产生排名。当多个相互冲突的结果并行评估时,选择最佳治疗可能会很复杂。设计:本研究建议在网络荟萃分析中结合多标准决策方法,通过使用TOPSIS、VIKOR和PROMETHEE算法创建部分和绝对排名,在多个结果感兴趣时选择最佳干预措施。TOPSIS和VIKOR技术代表了基于距离的折衷干预选择方法,而PROMETHEE分析方法允许定义偏好和无差异阈值。此外,PROMETHEE技术允许通过选择可选的偏好函数来实现多种建模选项。可以用熵值法客观地对结果施加不同的权重,也可以用层次分析法主观地对结果施加不同的权重,从而根据临床情况实现治疗选择的个性化。结果:决策分析的可视化可以通过多标准分数调整散点图进行,而排位表可以构建来描述干预措施的PROMETHEE I偏序。假设结果的权重相等,进行模拟研究,并使用相似系数比较TOPSIS、VIKOR和PROMETHEE II方法,表明方法之间的一致性很高,特别是在干预数量较多的情况下。结论:在网络荟萃分析中,多标准决策分析为选择折衷干预措施和可视化治疗选择提供了一种灵活且计算直接的方法。进一步的研究应该提供关于在现实世界网络荟萃分析中实施多标准决策分析的经验数据,旨在根据临床问题确定最合适的方法。重点:多标准决策方法可以在网络荟萃分析中实施,以表明折衷干预措施。TOPSIS, VIKOR和PROMETHEE方法可用于评估冲突结果时的最佳治疗选择。结果的权重可以客观地或主观地定义,反映了决策者的优先级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1