Sze Huey Tan1, Nicola J Cooper2, Sylwia Bujkiewicz2, Nicky J Welton3, Deborah M Caldwell3, Alexander J Sutton2. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Adrian Building, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK; Division of Clinical Trials and Epidemiological Sciences, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, 169610, Singapore. Electronic address: sht10@leicester.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Adrian Building, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK. 3. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To present graphical tools for reporting network meta-analysis (NMA) results aiming to increase the accessibility, transparency, interpretability, and acceptability of NMA analyses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: The key components of NMA results were identified based on recommendations by agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom). Three novel graphs were designed to amalgamate the identified components using familiar graphical tools such as the bar, line, or pie charts and adhering to good graphical design principles. RESULTS: Three key components for presentation of NMA results were identified, namely relative effects and their uncertainty, probability of an intervention being best, and between-study heterogeneity. Two of the three graphs developed present results (for each pairwise comparison of interventions in the network) obtained from both NMA and standard pairwise meta-analysis for easy comparison. They also include options to display the probability best, ranking statistics, heterogeneity, and prediction intervals. The third graph presents rankings of interventions in terms of their effectiveness to enable clinicians to easily identify "top-ranking" interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The graphical tools presented can display results tailored to the research question of interest, and targeted at a whole spectrum of users from the technical analyst to the nontechnical clinician.
OBJECTIVES: To present graphical tools for reporting network meta-analysis (NMA) results aiming to increase the accessibility, transparency, interpretability, and acceptability of NMA analyses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: The key components of NMA results were identified based on recommendations by agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom). Three novel graphs were designed to amalgamate the identified components using familiar graphical tools such as the bar, line, or pie charts and adhering to good graphical design principles. RESULTS: Three key components for presentation of NMA results were identified, namely relative effects and their uncertainty, probability of an intervention being best, and between-study heterogeneity. Two of the three graphs developed present results (for each pairwise comparison of interventions in the network) obtained from both NMA and standard pairwise meta-analysis for easy comparison. They also include options to display the probability best, ranking statistics, heterogeneity, and prediction intervals. The third graph presents rankings of interventions in terms of their effectiveness to enable clinicians to easily identify "top-ranking" interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The graphical tools presented can display results tailored to the research question of interest, and targeted at a whole spectrum of users from the technical analyst to the nontechnical clinician.
Authors: Felix A Achana; Alex J Sutton; Denise Kendrick; Persephone Wynn; Ben Young; David R Jones; Stephanie J Hubbard; Nicola J Cooper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fernanda S Tonin; Helena H Borba; Antonio M Mendes; Astrid Wiens; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos; Roberto Pontarolo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Georgia Salanti; Cinzia Del Giovane; Anna Chaimani; Deborah M Caldwell; Julian P T Higgins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.240