MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402557249 · doi:10.1002/gin2.70003

MATCH‐IT: A decision support tool for multiple comparisons presenting data from network meta‐analysis to facilitate guideline development

2024· article· en· W4402557249 on OpenAlexaff
Birk Stokke Hunskaar, Per Olav Løvsletten, Frankie Achille, Anja Fog Heen, Thomas Agoritsas, Per Olav Vandvik

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Public Health Guidelines · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersNorges ForskningsrådUniversitetet i Oslo
KeywordsGuidelineComputer scienceMeta-analysisDecision support systemData miningData scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Network meta‐analysis (NMA) provides unprecedented opportunities to compare multiple treatment options (multiple comparisons) and are increasingly being used to inform clinical practice guidelines. However, the overwhelming amount of data generated from NMAs is challenging to present in comprehensible overviews for end‐users, guideline panelists included. Acknowledging these challenges, we developed MATCH‐IT—an interactive evidence summary displaying NMA results for multiple comparisons. In this study, we conducted user‐testing and further developed MATCH‐IT to support guideline panels in moving from NMA evidence to recommendations. Methods We user‐tested the tool with guideline panelists and observed the use of the tool in panel meetings. User‐testing sessions and guideline meetings were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The analysis informed the iterative development in the tool. Results We included four guideline panels and tested the tool with 15 panelists (four chairs, four methodologists, five clinical experts and two patient partners). User testing revealed both positive aspects and limitations of the tool. Interactivity allowed for dynamic display of the evidence during panels meetings and was highlighted as valuable. Further, participants felt that the tool provided overview of complex evidence, further facilitated by categorization of effects through colour coding. The inclusion of information on burden of treatment was highlighted as relevant and valuable. Regarding limitations, some users had issues discovering the interactive features. Earlier versions of MATCH‐IT did not include sufficiently detailed information, such as the imprecision of effect estimates, which the users felt was needed for decision making. These findings led to refinements of the tool, including a new tutorial, inclusion of confidence intervals, and a new layer displaying more detailed information. Discussion Our study suggests that MATCH‐IT may play a role in facilitating guideline development by easing understanding of NMA evidence and alleviating information overload in guideline panelists.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.332
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.176
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3320.176
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.973
GPT teacher head0.679
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Public Health GuidelinesSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207