Abstract
Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) produces complex outputs as many comparisons between interventions are of interest and a treatment ranking is often included in the aims of the evidence synthesis. The estimated relative treatment effects are usually displayed in a forest plot or in a league table and several ranking metrics are calculated and presented, such as the median and mean treatment ranks.
Methods We estimate relative treatment effects of each competing treatment against a fictional ‘average’ treatment using the ‘deviation from the means’ coding that has been used to parametrize categorical covariates in regression models. Based on this alternative parametrization of the NMA model, we present a new ranking metric (PreTA: Preferable Than Average) interpreted as the probability that a treatment is better than a fictional treatment of average performance.
Results We compare PreTA with existing probabilistic ranking metrics in 232 networks of interventions. We use two networks of interventions, a network of 18 antidepressants for acute depression and a network of four interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding, to illustrate the methodology. The agreement between PreTA and existing ranking metrics depends on the precision with which relative effects are estimated.
Conclusions PreTA is a viable alternative to existing ranking metrics which can be interpreted as the probability of being better than the ‘average’ treatment. It enriches the decision-making arsenal with a ranking metric which is interpreted as a probability and considers the entire ranking distributions of the involved treatments.
Competing Interest Statement
TAF reports personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD and Shionogi and a grant from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, outside the submitted work; TAF has a patent 2018-177688 pending.
Funding Statement
AN, VC, TP and GS were supported by project funding (Grant No. 179158) from the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Data Availability
Outcome data and the code for applying our methods are available in https://github.com/esm-ispm-unibe-ch/alternativenma.
