Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: introduction - PubMed (original) (raw)
Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: introduction
Sofia Dias et al. Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul.
Free PMC article
Abstract
We introduce the series of 7 tutorial papers on evidence synthesis methods for decision making, based on the Technical Support Documents in Evidence Synthesis prepared for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit. Although oriented to NICE's Technology Appraisal process, which examines new pharmaceutical products in a cost-effectiveness framework, the methods presented throughout the tutorials are equally relevant to clinical guideline development and to comparisons between medical devices, or public health interventions. Detailed guidance is given on how to use the other tutorials in the series, which propose a single evidence synthesis framework that covers fixed and random effects models, pairwise meta-analysis, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analysis, and where outcomes expressed in several different reporting formats can be analyzed without recourse to normal approximations. We describe the principles of evidence synthesis required by the 2008 revision of the NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal and explain how the approach proposed in these tutorials was designed to conform to those requirements. We finish with some suggestions on how to present the evidence, the synthesis methods, and the results.
Keywords: Bayesian meta-analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; systematic reviews.
Figures
Figure 1
Disconnected treatment network. Lines represent a comparison of the connected treatments in at least one trial. The network formed by treatments A, B, and C is not connected to the network formed by treatments X and Y.
Figure 2
Treatment network in which the treatments relevant for the decision and for synthesis differ. Lines represent a comparison of the connected treatments in at least one trial. Treatments relevant to the decision are in bold. (a) Treatment X has been added to the synthesis because it links treatment C to the rest of the network (dashed lines); (b) Treatment Y also links treatment C to the network and needs to be added to the synthesis (long-dashed lines).
Figure 3
Parkinson network. Each edge represents a treatment, and connecting lines indicate pairs of treatments that have been directly compared in randomized trials. The numbers on the lines indicate the numbers of trials making that comparison, and the numbers in brackets represent the treatment coding used in the analysis.
Figure 4
Mean lost work-time reduction on treatments for Parkinson’s disease relative to placebo. The horizontal lines represent the 95% credible intervals with the dot representing the posterior mean relative treatment effect. The vertical line represents no treatment effect.
Similar articles
- Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework.
Murphy P, Glynn D, Dias S, Hodgson R, Claxton L, Beresford L, Cooper K, Tappenden P, Ennis K, Grosso A, Wright K, Cantrell A, Stevenson M, Palmer S. Murphy P, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2021 Dec;25(76):1-228. doi: 10.3310/hta25760. Health Technol Assess. 2021. PMID: 34990339 - Justice, Transparency and the Guiding Principles of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Charlton V. Charlton V. Health Care Anal. 2022 Jun;30(2):115-145. doi: 10.1007/s10728-021-00444-y. Epub 2021 Nov 8. Health Care Anal. 2022. PMID: 34750743 Free PMC article. - The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834 - Ablation: Atrial fibrillation: diagnosis and management: Network meta-analysis J2.
National Guideline Centre (UK). National Guideline Centre (UK). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Apr. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Apr. PMID: 34165931 Free Books & Documents. Review. - An exploration of synthesis methods in public health evaluations of interventions concludes that the use of modern statistical methods would be beneficial.
Achana F, Hubbard S, Sutton A, Kendrick D, Cooper N. Achana F, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):376-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.018. Epub 2013 Dec 31. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014. PMID: 24388291 Review.
Cited by
- DOSage of Exercise for chronic low back pain disorders (DOSE): protocol for a systematic review with dose-response network meta-analysis.
Arora NK, Donath L, Owen PJ, Miller CT, Kaczorowski S, Saueressig T, Pedder H, Mundell NL, Tagliaferri SD, Diwan A, Chen X, Zhao X, Huessler EM, Ehrenbrusthoff K, Ford JJ, Hahne AJ, Hammel L, Norda H, Belavy DL. Arora NK, et al. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2024 Aug 16;10(3):e002108. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002108. eCollection 2024. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2024. PMID: 39161554 Free PMC article. - Effectiveness and safety of Danshen injections in treatment of cardiac failure: a network meta-analysis.
Song Y, Song N, Jia L, Pei Y. Song Y, et al. Front Pharmacol. 2024 Mar 13;15:1319551. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1319551. eCollection 2024. Front Pharmacol. 2024. PMID: 38545554 Free PMC article. Review. - A Guide to an Iterative Approach to Model-Based Decision Making in Health and Medicine: An Iterative Decision-Making Framework.
Kunst N, Burger EA, Coupé VMH, Kuntz KM, Aas E. Kunst N, et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2024 Apr;42(4):363-371. doi: 10.1007/s40273-023-01341-z. Epub 2023 Dec 29. Pharmacoeconomics. 2024. PMID: 38157129 - Increasing transparency in indirect treatment comparisons: is selecting effect modifiers the missing part of the puzzle? A review of methodological approaches and critical considerations.
Freitag A, Gurskyte L, Sarri G. Freitag A, et al. J Comp Eff Res. 2023 Oct;12(10):e230046. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0046. Epub 2023 Aug 21. J Comp Eff Res. 2023. PMID: 37602779 Free PMC article. Review. - Which treatment strategy is optimal for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction? A Bayesian meta-analysis.
Ouyang K, Yang Z, Yang Y, Wang J, Wu D, Li Y. Ouyang K, et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2023 Aug 17;38(1):217. doi: 10.1007/s00384-023-04489-4. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2023. PMID: 37589792 Review.
References
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. September 2009. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/42D/B3/STAGuideLrFinal.pdf
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the multiple technology appraisal process (reference N2022). September 2009. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/42D/8C/MTAGuideLRFINAL.pdf
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (updated June 2008). Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf - PubMed
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, third edition: draft for consultation. 2012. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/CB1/43/GuideToMethodsOfTechnologyAppraisal2...
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence The Guidelines Manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources