The use of open-source programming languages, such as R, in health decision sciences is growing and has the potential to facilitate model transparency, reproducibility, and shareability. However, realizing this potential can be challenging. Models are complex and primarily built to answer a research question, with model sharing and transparency relegated to being secondary goals. Consequently, code is often neither well documented nor systematically organized in a comprehensible and shareable approach. Moreover, many decision modelers are not formally trained in computer programming and may lack good coding practices, further compounding the problem of model transparency. To address these challenges, we propose a high-level framework for model-based decision and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) in R. The proposed framework consists of a conceptual, modular structure and coding recommendations for the implementation of model-based decision analyses in R. This framework defines a set of common decision model elements divided into five components: (1) model inputs, (2) decision model implementation, (3) model calibration, (4) model validation, and (5) analysis. The first four components form the model development phase. The analysis component is the application of the fully developed decision model to answer the policy or the research question of interest, assess decision uncertainty, and/or to determine the value of future research through value of information (VOI) analysis. In this framework, we also make recommendations for good coding practices specific to decision modeling, such as file organization and variable naming conventions. We showcase the framework through a fully functional, testbed decision model, which is hosted on GitHub for free download and easy adaptation to other applications. The use of this framework in decision modeling will improve code readability and model sharing, paving the way to an ideal, open-source world.
Decision models can combine information from different sources to simulate the long-term consequences of alternative strategies in the presence of uncertainty. A cohort state-transition model (cSTM) is a decision model commonly used in medical decision making to simulate the transitions of a hypothetical cohort among various health states over time. This tutorial focuses on time-independent cSTM, in which transition probabilities among health states remain constant over time. We implement time-independent cSTM in R, an open-source mathematical and statistical programming language. We illustrate time-independent cSTMs using a previously published decision model, calculate costs and effectiveness outcomes, and conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of multiple strategies, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. We provide open-source code in R to facilitate wider adoption. In a second, more advanced tutorial, we illustrate time-dependent cSTMs.
ObjectiveTo determine how distinct combinations of resistance training prescription (RTx) variables (load, sets and frequency) affect muscle strength and hypertrophy.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until February 2022.Eligibility criteriaRandomised trials that included healthy adults, compared at least 2 predefined conditions (non-exercise control (CTRL) and 12 RTx, differentiated by load, sets and/or weekly frequency), and reported muscle strength and/or hypertrophy were included.AnalysesSystematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis methodology was used to compare RTxs and CTRL. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were used to rank conditions. Confidence was assessed with threshold analysis.ResultsThe strength network included 178 studies (n=5097; women=45%). The hypertrophy network included 119 studies (n=3364; women=47%). All RTxs were superior to CTRL for muscle strength and hypertrophy. Higher-load (>80% of single repetition maximum) prescriptions maximised strength gains, and all prescriptions comparably promoted muscle hypertrophy. While the calculated effects of many prescriptions were similar, higher-load, multiset, thrice-weekly training (standardised mean difference (95% credible interval); 1.60 (1.38 to 1.82) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for strength, and higher-load, multiset, twice-weekly training (0.66 (0.47 to 0.85) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for hypertrophy. Threshold analysis demonstrated these results were extremely robust.ConclusionAll RTx promoted strength and hypertrophy compared with no exercise. The highest-ranked prescriptions for strength involved higher loads, whereas the highest-ranked prescriptions for hypertrophy included multiple sets.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021259663 and CRD42021258902.
Purpose We aimed to provide clinicians with introductory guidance for interpreting and assessing confidence in on Network meta-analysis (NMA) results. Methods We reviewed current literature on NMA and summarized key points. Results Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical method for comparing the efficacy of three or more interventions simultaneously in a single analysis by synthesizing both direct and indirect evidence across a network of randomized clinical trials. It has become increasingly popular in healthcare, since direct evidence (head-to-head randomized clinical trials) are not always available. NMA methods are categorized as either Bayesian or frequentist, and while the two mostly provide similar results, the two approaches are theoretically different and require different interpretations of the results. Conclusions We recommend a careful approach to interpreting NMA results and the validity of an NMA depends on its underlying statistical assumptions and the quality of the evidence used in the NMA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.