Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder.

IF 9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112848
Constant Vinatier, Clement Palpacuer, Alexandre Scanff, Florian Naudet
{"title":"Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder.","authors":"Constant Vinatier, Clement Palpacuer, Alexandre Scanff, Florian Naudet","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>It is frequent to find overlapping network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic with differences in terms of both treatments included and effect estimates. We aimed to evaluate the impact on effect estimates of selecting different treatment combinations (ie, network geometries) for inclusion in NMAs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multiverse analysis, covering all possible NMAs on different combinations of treatments.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Data from a previously published NMA exploring the comparative effectiveness of 22 treatments (21 antidepressants and a placebo) for the treatment of acute major depressive disorder.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Cipriani <i>et al</i> explored a dataset of 116 477 patients included in 522 randomised controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>For each possible treatment selection, we performed an NMA to estimate comparative effectiveness on treatment response and treatment discontinuation for the treatments included (231 between-treatment comparisons). The distribution of effect estimates of between-treatment comparisons across NMAs was computed, and the direction, magnitude and statistical significance of the 1st and 99th percentiles were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>4 116 254 different NMAs concerned treatment response. Among possible network geometries, 172/231 (74%) pairwise comparisons exhibited opposite effects between the 1st and 99th percentiles, 57/231 (25%) comparisons exhibited statistically significant results in opposite directions, 118 of 231 (51%) comparisons derived results that were both significant and non-significant at 5% risk and 56/231 (24%) treatment pairs obtained consistent results with only significant differences (or only non-significant differences) at 5% risk. Comparisons based on indirect evidence only were associated with greater variability in effect estimates. Comparisons with small absolute values observed in the complete NMA more frequently obtained statistically significant results in opposite directions. Similar results were observed for treatment discontinuation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this multiverse analysis, we observed that the selection of treatments to be included in an NMA could have considerable consequences on treatment effect estimations.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>https://osf.io/mb5dy.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"324-332"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503165/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112848","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: It is frequent to find overlapping network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic with differences in terms of both treatments included and effect estimates. We aimed to evaluate the impact on effect estimates of selecting different treatment combinations (ie, network geometries) for inclusion in NMAs.

Design: Multiverse analysis, covering all possible NMAs on different combinations of treatments.

Setting: Data from a previously published NMA exploring the comparative effectiveness of 22 treatments (21 antidepressants and a placebo) for the treatment of acute major depressive disorder.

Participants: Cipriani et al explored a dataset of 116 477 patients included in 522 randomised controlled trials.

Main outcome measures: For each possible treatment selection, we performed an NMA to estimate comparative effectiveness on treatment response and treatment discontinuation for the treatments included (231 between-treatment comparisons). The distribution of effect estimates of between-treatment comparisons across NMAs was computed, and the direction, magnitude and statistical significance of the 1st and 99th percentiles were compared.

Results: 4 116 254 different NMAs concerned treatment response. Among possible network geometries, 172/231 (74%) pairwise comparisons exhibited opposite effects between the 1st and 99th percentiles, 57/231 (25%) comparisons exhibited statistically significant results in opposite directions, 118 of 231 (51%) comparisons derived results that were both significant and non-significant at 5% risk and 56/231 (24%) treatment pairs obtained consistent results with only significant differences (or only non-significant differences) at 5% risk. Comparisons based on indirect evidence only were associated with greater variability in effect estimates. Comparisons with small absolute values observed in the complete NMA more frequently obtained statistically significant results in opposite directions. Similar results were observed for treatment discontinuation.

Conclusion: In this multiverse analysis, we observed that the selection of treatments to be included in an NMA could have considerable consequences on treatment effect estimations.

Trial registration: https://osf.io/mb5dy.

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
混合治疗比较中治疗选择导致的效应振动:重度抑郁症抗抑郁药网络荟萃分析的多元宇宙分析。
目的:在同一主题的网络荟萃分析(NMA)中,经常会发现重叠的网络荟萃分析在纳入的治疗方法和效果估计方面存在差异。我们旨在评估选择不同的治疗组合(即网络几何结构)纳入 NMA 对效果估计值的影响:设计:多元分析,涵盖所有可能的关于不同治疗组合的 NMA:数据来自之前发表的一项NMA,该NMA探讨了22种治疗方法(21种抗抑郁药和1种安慰剂)治疗急性重度抑郁症的比较效果:Cipriani等人研究了包含在522项随机对照试验中的116 477名患者的数据集:对于每种可能的治疗选择,我们都进行了NMA,以估算所纳入治疗的治疗反应和治疗中止的比较效果(231次治疗间比较)。我们计算了各 NMA 治疗间比较效果估计值的分布情况,并比较了第 1 个百分位数和第 99 个百分位数的方向、幅度和统计学意义:4 116 254 个不同的 NMA 涉及治疗反应。在可能的网络几何图形中,172/231(74%)次成对比较显示出第 1 个百分位数和第 99 个百分位数之间的效应相反,57/231(25%)次比较显示出统计意义上的相反方向结果,231 次比较中的 118 次(51%)比较得出的结果在 5%风险下既显著又不显著,56/231(24%)次治疗对获得了一致的结果,在 5%风险下只有显著差异(或只有不显著差异)。仅基于间接证据的比较与效应估计值的较大变异有关。在完整的 NMA 中观察到的绝对值较小的比较更经常获得相反方向的具有统计学意义的结果。在中断治疗方面也观察到了类似的结果:在这一多重宇宙分析中,我们观察到,选择纳入NMA的治疗方法会对治疗效果估计产生相当大的影响。试验注册:https://osf.io/mb5dy。
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
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
期刊最新文献
Insights on the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) guideline addressing medical overuse. Reporting health and medical research. CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports. Quantifying the time-varying association between objectively measured physical activity and mortality in US older adults over a 12-year follow-up period: the NHANES 2003-2006 study. Direct-to-consumer advertising: a modifiable driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
×
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