118 research outputs found
A novel approach for identifying and addressing case‐mix heterogeneity in individual participant data meta‐analysis
Case-mix heterogeneity across studies complicates meta-analyses. As a result of this, treatments that are equally effective on patient subgroups may appear to have different effectiveness on patient populations with different case mix. It is therefore important that meta-analyses be explicit for what patient population they describe the treatment effect. To achieve this, we develop a new approach for meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, which use individual patient data (IPD) from all trials to infer the treatment effect for the patient population in a given trial, based on direct standardization using either outcome regression (OCR) or inverse probability weighting (IPW). Accompanying random-effect meta-analysis models are developed. The new approach enables disentangling heterogeneity due to case mix from that due to beyond case-mix reasons
Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study
Background Empirical research has illustrated an association between study size and relative treatment effects, but conclusions have been inconsistent about the association of study size with the risk of bias items. Small studies give generally imprecisely estimated treatment effects, and study variance can serve as a surrogate for study size. Methods We conducted a network meta-epidemiological study analyzing 32 networks including 613 randomized controlled trials, and used Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression models to evaluate the impact of trial characteristics and study variance on the results of network meta-analysis. We examined changes in relative effects and between-studies variation in network meta-regression models as a function of the variance of the observed effect size and indicators for the adequacy of each risk of bias item. Adjustment was performed both within and across networks, allowing for between-networks variability. Results Imprecise studies with large variances tended to exaggerate the effects of the active or new intervention in the majority of networks, with a ratio of odds ratios of 1.83 (95% CI: 1.09,3.32). Inappropriate or unclear conduct of random sequence generation and allocation concealment, as well as lack of blinding of patients and outcome assessors, did not materially impact on the summary results. Imprecise studies also appeared to be more prone to inadequate conduct. Conclusions Compared to more precise studies, studies with large variance may give substantially different answers that alter the results of network meta-analyses for dichotomous outcome
Sharing information across patient subgroups to draw conclusions from sparse treatment networks
Network meta-analysis (NMA) usually provides estimates of the relative
effects with the highest possible precision. However, sparse networks with few
available studies and limited direct evidence can arise, threatening the
robustness and reliability of NMA estimates. In these cases, the limited amount
of available information can hamper the formal evaluation of the underlying NMA
assumptions of transitivity and consistency. In addition, NMA estimates from
sparse networks are expected to be imprecise and possibly biased as they rely
on large sample approximations which are invalid in the absence of sufficient
data. We propose a Bayesian framework that allows sharing of information
between two networks that pertain to different population subgroups.
Specifically, we use the results from a subgroup with a lot of direct evidence
(a dense network) to construct informative priors for the relative effects in
the target subgroup (a sparse network). This is a two-stage approach where at
the first stage we extrapolate the results of the dense network to those
expected from the sparse network. This takes place by using a modified
hierarchical NMA model where we add a location parameter that shifts the
distribution of the relative effects to make them applicable to the target
population. At the second stage, these extrapolated results are used as prior
information for the sparse network. We illustrate our approach through a
motivating example of psychiatric patients. Our approach results in more
precise and robust estimates of the relative effects and can adequately inform
clinical practice in presence of sparse networks
CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The evaluation of the credibility of results from a meta-analysis has become an important part of the evidence synthesis process. We present a methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared.
METHODOLOGY
CINeMA considers 6 domains: (i) within-study bias, (ii) reporting bias, (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, (v) heterogeneity, and (vi) incoherence. Key to judgments about within-study bias and indirectness is the percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much information each study contributes to the results from network meta-analysis. The contribution matrix can easily be computed using a freely available web application. In evaluating imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence, we consider the impact of these components of variability in forming clinical decisions.
CONCLUSIONS
Via 3 examples, we show that CINeMA improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process. CINeMA is easy to apply even in large and complicated networks
Allowing for informative missingness in aggregate data meta-analysis with continuous or binary outcomes:Extensions to metamiss
Missing outcome data can invalidate the results of randomized trials
and their meta-analysis. However, addressing missing data is often a challenging
issue because it requires untestable assumptions. The impact of missing outcome
data on the meta-analysis summary effect can be explored by assuming a relationship
between the outcome in the observed and the missing participants via an
informative missingness parameter. The informative missingness parameters cannot
be estimated from the observed data, but they can be specified, with associated
uncertainty, using evidence external to the meta-analysis, such as expert opinion.
The use of informative missingness parameters in pairwise meta-analysis of aggregate
data with binary outcomes has been previously implemented in Stata by
the metamiss command. In this article, we present the new command metamiss2,
which is an extension of metamiss for binary or continuous data in pairwise or
network meta-analysis. The command can be used to explore the robustness of
results to different assumptions about the missing data via sensitivity analysis
Comparative effects of different dietary approaches on blood pressure in hypertensive and pre-hypertensive patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Pairwise meta-analyses have shown beneficial effects of individual dietary approaches on blood
pressure but their comparative effects have not been established. Objective: Therefore we performed a
systematic review of different dietary intervention trials and estimated the aggregate blood pressure effects
through network meta-analysis including hypertensive and pre-hypertensive patients. Design: PubMed,
Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched until June 2017. The inclusion criteria were defined as
follows: i) Randomized trial with a dietary approach; ii) hypertensive and pre-hypertensive adult patients; and iii)
minimum intervention period of 12 weeks. In order to determine the pooled effect of each intervention relative
to each of the other intervention for both diastolic and systolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), random effects
network meta-analysis was performed. Results: A total of 67 trials comparing 13 dietary approaches (DASH, lowfat, moderate-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, Palaeolithic, vegetarian, low-GI/GL,
low-sodium, Nordic, Tibetan, and control) enrolling 17,230 participants were included. In the network metaanalysis, the DASH, Mediterranean, low-carbohydrate, Palaeolithic, high-protein, low-glycaemic index, lowsodium, and low-fat dietary approaches were significantly more effective in reducing SBP (¡8.73 to
¡2.32 mmHg) and DBP (¡4.85 to ¡1.27 mmHg) compared to a control diet. According to the SUCRAs, the DASH
diet was ranked the most effective dietary approach in reducing SBP (90%) and DBP (91%), followed by the
Palaeolithic, and the low-carbohydrate diet (ranked 3rd for SBP) or the Mediterranean diet (ranked 3rd for DBP).
For most comparisons, the credibility of evidence was rated very low to moderate, with the exception for the
DASH vs. the low-fat dietary approach for which the quality of evidence was rated high. Conclusion: The present network meta-analysis suggests that the DASH dietary approach might be the most effective dietary measure toreduce blood pressure among hypertensive and pre-hypertensive patients based on high quality evidence
Estimating the contribution of studies in network meta-analysis: paths, flows and streams [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
In network meta-analysis, it is important to assess the influence of the limitations or other characteristics of individual studies on the estimates obtained from the network. The percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much each direct treatment effect contributes to each treatment effect estimate from network meta-analysis, is crucial in this context. We use ideas from graph theory to derive the percentage that is contributed by each direct treatment effect. We start with the ‘projection’ matrix in a two-step network meta-analysis model, called the H matrix, which is analogous to the hat matrix in a linear regression model. We develop a method to translate H entries to percentage contributions based on the observation that the rows of H can be interpreted as flow networks, where a stream is defined as the composition of a path and its associated flow. We present an algorithm that identifies the flow of evidence in each path and decomposes it into direct comparisons. To illustrate the methodology, we use two published networks of interventions. The first compares no treatment, quinolone antibiotics, non-quinolone antibiotics and antiseptics for underlying eardrum perforations and the second compares 14 antimanic drugs. We believe that this approach is a useful and novel addition to network meta-analysis methodology, which allows the consistent derivation of the percentage contributions of direct evidence from individual studies to network treatment effects
Estimating the contribution of studies in network meta-analysis: paths, flows and streams [version 1; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
In network meta-analysis, it is important to assess the influence of the limitations or other characteristics of individual studies on the estimates obtained from the network. The percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much each direct treatment effect contributes to each treatment effect estimate from network meta-analysis, is crucial in this context. We use ideas from graph theory to derive the percentage that is contributed by each direct treatment effect. We start with the ‘projection’ matrix in a two-step network meta-analysis model, called the H matrix, which is analogous to the hat matrix in a linear regression model. We develop a method to translate H entries to percentage contributions based on the observation that the rows of H can be interpreted as flow networks, where a stream is defined as the composition of a path and its associated flow. We present an algorithm that identifies the flow of evidence in each path and decomposes it into direct comparisons. To illustrate the methodology, we use two published networks of interventions. The first compares no treatment, quinolone antibiotics, non-quinolone antibiotics and antiseptics for underlying eardrum perforations and the second compares 14 antimanic drugs. We believe that this approach is a useful and novel addition to network meta-analysis methodology, which allows the consistent derivation of the percentage contributions of direct evidence from individual studies to network treatment effects
Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study
BACKGROUND
Empirical research has illustrated an association between study size and relative treatment effects, but conclusions have been inconsistent about the association of study size with the risk of bias items. Small studies give generally imprecisely estimated treatment effects, and study variance can serve as a surrogate for study size.
METHODS
We conducted a network meta-epidemiological study analyzing 32 networks including 613 randomized controlled trials, and used Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression models to evaluate the impact of trial characteristics and study variance on the results of network meta-analysis. We examined changes in relative effects and between-studies variation in network meta-regression models as a function of the variance of the observed effect size and indicators for the adequacy of each risk of bias item. Adjustment was performed both within and across networks, allowing for between-networks variability.
RESULTS
Imprecise studies with large variances tended to exaggerate the effects of the active or new intervention in the majority of networks, with a ratio of odds ratios of 1.83 (95% CI: 1.09,3.32). Inappropriate or unclear conduct of random sequence generation and allocation concealment, as well as lack of blinding of patients and outcome assessors, did not materially impact on the summary results. Imprecise studies also appeared to be more prone to inadequate conduct.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to more precise studies, studies with large variance may give substantially different answers that alter the results of network meta-analyses for dichotomous outcomes
Impact of placebo arms on outcomes in antidepressant trials:systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Background
There is debate in the literature as to whether inclusion of a placebo arm may alter characteristics of antidepressant trials. However, previous research has focused on response rates of various antidepressants on average only, ignoring potential differences among drugs or other aspects of trial findings. Little is known about the impact of a placebo arm on all-cause dropout and dropout due to adverse events.
Methods
We carried out a systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression (update: January 2016). The probability of being allocated to placebo (π) was the exposure of interest, and we examined its influence on responders (efficacy), all-cause dropouts (acceptability) and dropouts due to adverse events (tolerability), while accounting for differences in drugs, trials and patient characteristics in multivariate random effects meta-regression.
Results
We included 421 studies (68 305 participants) comparing 16 antidepressants or placebo; π ranged from 20% to 50%. Response rate was lower [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 0.92] and all-cause dropout rate higher (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08, 1.31) for the same antidepressants in placebo-controlled trials compared with head-to-head trials. The probability of responding decreased by 3% (95% CI 2–5%) for every 10% increase in π, whereas the risk of all-cause dropout increased by 4% (95% CI 1–7%). Tolerability was unaffected by π. Response rate was inversely correlated with dropouts due to any cause (correlation coefficient −0.48; 95% CI −0.58, −0.36) and due to adverse events (−0.34; 95% CI −0.44, −0.23).
Conclusions
For the same antidepressant, response rate was on average smaller and dropouts higher when placebo was included; however, no association was found with dropouts due to adverse events. Decreased patient expectations, larger dropout rates and use of inappropriate statistical methods to impute missing data may explain this phenomenon. The findings call for caution in the integration of randomized evidence involving placebo arms
- …