Vitruvian plot: a visualisation tool for multiple outcomes in network meta-analysis

Interpretation and use of a decision support tool for multiple treatment options: a combined randomised controlled trial and survey of medical students

OBJECTIVES

To investigate medical students' ability to interpret evidence, as well as their self-assessed understandability, perceived usefulness and preferences for design alternatives in an interactive decision support tool, displaying GRADE evidence summaries for multiple treatment options (Making Alternative Treatment CHoices Intuitive and Trustworthy, MATCH-IT).

DESIGN

A combined randomised controlled trial and survey. Participants were presented with a clinical scenario and randomised to one of two versions of the MATCH-IT tool (A/B), instructed to explore the evidence and decide on a recommendation. Participants answered a questionnaire assessing interpretation, treatment recommendation self-assessed understandability and perceived usefulness before exposure to the other MATCH-IT version and asked questions on design preferences.

SETTING

Online lecture in an evidence-based medicine (EBM) introductory course.

PARTICIPANTS

149 third-year medical students. 52% (n=77) had 6 months of clinical training and 48% (n=72) had preclinical training only.

INTERVENTIONS

The MATCH-IT tool version A uses colour coding to categorise interventions by magnitude and direction of effects and displays all outcomes in a table on entry. Version B has no colour coding, and the user must decide which outcomes to display in the table.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Interpretation of evidence, treatment recommendation, perceived usefulness and understandability, preference for format and design alternatives.

RESULTS

82.5% (n=123) of medical students correctly answered ≥4 out of 5 multiple choice questions assessing interpretation of data. 75.8% (n=114) of students made a treatment recommendation in accordance with an expert panel for the same clinical scenario. 87.2% (n=130) found the tool understandable while 91.9% perceived the tool as useful in addressing the clinical scenario.

CONCLUSION

Medical students with no prior training in EBM can interpret and use the MATCH-IT tool. Certain design alternatives were preferred but had no bearing on interpretation of evidence or understandability of the tool.

The use of network meta-analysis in updating WHO living maternal and perinatal health recommendations

Drawing on two recent examples of WHO living guidelines in maternal and perinatal health, this paper elucidates a pragmatic, stepwise approach to using network meta-analysis (NMA) in guideline development in the presence of multiple treatment options. NMA has important advantages. These include the ability to compare multiple interventions in a single coherent analysis, provide direct estimates of the relative effects of all available interventions, infer indirect effect estimates for interventions not directly compared and generate rankings of the available treatment options. It can be difficult to harness these advantages in the face of a lack of current guidance on using NMA evidence in guideline development, with several challenges emerging. Challenges include the choice of conceptual approach, the volume and complexity of the evidence, the contribution of treatment rankings, and the fact that the preferable treatment is not always obvious. This paper describes a layered approach to resolving these challenges, which supports systematic guideline decision-making and development of trustworthy clinical guidelines when multiple treatment options are available.

Psychosocial interventions for the prevention of self-harm repetition: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Suicide is an important public health problem. Providing evidence-based psychosocial interventions to individuals presenting with self-harm is recognised as an important suicide prevention strategy. Therefore, it is crucial to understand which intervention is most effective in preventing self-harm repetition. We will evaluate the comparative efficacy of psychosocial interventions for the prevention of self-harm in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing psychosocial interventions for the prevention of self-harm repetition. We will include RCTs in adults (mean age: 18 years or more) who presented with self-harm in the 6 months preceding enrolment in the trial. Interventions will be categorised according to their similarities and underpinning theoretical approaches (eg, cognitive behavioural therapy, case management). A health sciences librarian will update and adapt the search strategy from the most recent Cochrane pairwise systematic review on this topic. The searches will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central (Wiley), Cochrane Protocols (Wiley), LILACS and PSYNDEX from 1 July 2020 (Cochrane review last search date) to 1 September 2023. The primary efficacy outcome will be self-harm repetition. Secondary outcomes will include suicide mortality, suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Retention in treatment (ie, drop-outs rates) will be analysed as the main acceptability outcome. Two reviewers will independently assess the study eligibility and risk of bias (using RoB-2). An NMA will be performed to synthesise all direct and indirect comparisons. Ranked forest plots and Vitruvian plots will be used to represent graphically the results of the NMA. Credibility of network estimates will be evaluated using Confidence in NMA (CINeMA).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As this is the protocol for an aggregate-data level NMA, ethical approval will not be required. Results will be disseminated at national/international conferences and in peer-review journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021273057.

Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions for the acute and long-term management of insomnia disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ.

FINDINGS

We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]).

INTERPRETATION

Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.