Abstract
The growing number of available treatment options have led to urgent needs for reliable answers when choosing the best course of treatment for a patient. As it is often infeasible to compare a large number of treatments in a single randomized controlled trial, multivariate network meta-analyses (NMAs) are used to synthesize evidence from existing trials of a subset of the available treatments, where outcomes related to both efficacy and safety are considered simultaneously. However, these large-scale multiple-outcome NMAs have created challenges to existing methods due to the increasingly complexity of the unknown correlation structures between different outcomes and treatment comparisons. In this paper, we proposed a new framework for PAtient-centered treatment ranking via Large-scale Multivariate network meta-analysis, termed as PALM, which includes a parsimonious modeling approach, a fast algorithm for parameter estimation and inference, a novel visualization tool for comparing treatments with multivariate outcomes termed as the star plot, as well as personalized treatment ranking procedures taking into account the individual’s considerations on multiple outcomes. In application to an NMA that compares 14 treatment options for labor induction over five modalities, we provided a comprehensive illustration of the proposed framework and demonstrated its computational efficiency and practicality. Our analysis leads to new insights on comparing these 14 treatment options based on joint inference of multiple outcomes that cannot be obtained from univariate NMAs, and novel visualizations of evidence to support patient-centered clinical decision making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work is supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants 1R01LM012607 (RD and YC), 1R01AI130460 (RD and YC),P50MH113840 (YC).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
rduan{at}hsph.harvard.edu
jiayi.tong{at}pennmendicine.upenn.edu
llin4{at}fsu.edu
lisa.levine{at}uphs.upenn.edu
mary.sammel{at}cuanschutz.edu
emphjoel.stoddard{at}ucdenver.edu
tianjing.li{at}cuanschutz.edu
christopher_schmid{at}brown.edu
chux0051{at}umn.edu
ychen123{at}upenn.edu
Data Availability
Our analysis is based on public available dataset from published papers of randomized clinical trials.
