Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is generally considered the most reliable source of estimates of relative treatment effects. However, in the last few years, there has been interest in using non-randomized studies to complement evidence from randomized controlled trials. Several meta-analytical models have been proposed to this end. Such models mainly focussed on estimating the average relative effects of interventions. In real-life clinical practice, when deciding on how to treat a patient, it might be of great interest to have personalized predictions of absolute outcomes under several available treatment options. This paper describes a general framework for developing models that combine individual patient data from randomized controlled trials and non-randomized study when aiming to predict outcomes for a set of competing medical interventions applied in real-world clinical settings. We also discuss methods for measuring the models' performance to identify the optimal model to use in each setting. We focus on the case of continuous outcomes and illustrate our methods using a data set from rheumatoid arthritis, comprising patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials and two registries from Switzerland and Britain

Developing and validating risk prediction models in an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models estimate the risk of developing future outcomes for individuals based on one or more underlying characteristics (predictors). We review how researchers develop and validate risk prediction models within an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, in order to assess the feasibility and conduct of the approach. METHODS: A qualitative review of the aims, methodology, and reporting in 15 articles that developed a risk prediction model using IPD from multiple studies. RESULTS: The IPD approach offers many opportunities but methodological challenges exist, including: unavailability of requested IPD, missing patient data and predictors, and between-study heterogeneity in methods of measurement, outcome definitions and predictor effects. Most articles develop their model using IPD from all available studies and perform only an internal validation (on the same set of data). Ten of the 15 articles did not allow for any study differences in baseline risk (intercepts), potentially limiting their model’s applicability and performance in some populations. Only two articles used external validation (on different data), including a novel method which develops the model on all but one of the IPD studies, tests performance in the excluded study, and repeats by rotating the omitted study. CONCLUSIONS: An IPD meta-analysis offers unique opportunities for risk prediction research. Researchers can make more of this by allowing separate model intercept terms for each study (population) to improve generalisability, and by using ‘internal-external cross-validation’ to simultaneously develop and validate their model. Methodological challenges can be reduced by prospectively planned collaborations that share IPD for risk prediction

Multiple Imputation for Multilevel Data with Continuous and Binary Variables

We present and compare multiple imputation methods for multilevel continuous and binary data where variables are systematically and sporadically missing. The methods are compared from a theoretical point of view and through an extensive simulation study motivated by a real dataset comprising multiple studies. The comparisons show that these multiple imputation methods are the most appropriate to handle missing values in a multilevel setting and why their relative performances can vary according to the missing data pattern, the multilevel structure and the type of missing variables. This study shows that valid inferences can only be obtained if the dataset includes a large number of clusters. In addition, it highlights that heteroscedastic multiple imputation methods provide more accurate inferences than homoscedastic methods, which should be reserved for data with few individuals per cluster. Finally, guidelines are given to choose the most suitable multiple imputation method according to the structure of the data

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data: TRIPOD-Cluster checklist

The increasing availability of large combined datasets (or big data), such as those from electronic health records and from individual participant data meta-analyses, provides new opportunities and challenges for researchers developing and validating (including updating) prediction models. These datasets typically include individuals from multiple clusters (such as multiple centres, geographical locations, or different studies). Accounting for clustering is important to avoid misleading conclusions and enables researchers to explore heterogeneity in prediction model performance across multiple centres, regions, or countries, to better tailor or match them to these different clusters, and thus to develop prediction models that are more generalisable. However, this requires prediction model researchers to adopt more specific design, analysis, and reporting methods than standard prediction model studies that do not have any inherent substantial clustering. Therefore, prediction model studies based on clustered data need to be reported differently so that readers can appraise the study methods and findings, further increasing the use and implementation of such prediction models developed or validated from clustered datasets

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data (TRIPOD-Cluster): explanation and elaboration

The TRIPOD-Cluster (transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data) statement comprises a 19 item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing or validating a prediction model in clustered data, such as individual participant data meta-analyses (clustering by study) and electronic health records (clustering by practice or hospital). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD-Cluster statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also serves as a reference of factors to consider when designing, conducting, and analysing prediction model development or validation studies in clustered data. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, authors are recommended to include a completed checklist in their submission

Real-time imputation of missing predictor values in clinical practice

Use of prediction models is widely recommended by clinical guidelines, but usually requires complete information on all predictors that is not always available in daily practice. We describe two methods for real-time handling of missing predictor values when using prediction models in practice. We compare the widely used method of mean imputation (M-imp) to a method that personalizes the imputations by taking advantage of the observed patient characteristics. These characteristics may include both prediction model variables and other characteristics (auxiliary variables). The method was implemented using imputation from a joint multivariate normal model of the patient characteristics (joint modeling imputation; JMI). Data from two different cardiovascular cohorts with cardiovascular predictors and outcome were used to evaluate the real-time imputation methods. We quantified the prediction model's overall performance (mean squared error (MSE) of linear predictor), discrimination (c-index), calibration (intercept and slope) and net benefit (decision curve analysis). When compared with mean imputation, JMI substantially improved the MSE (0.10 vs. 0.13), c-index (0.70 vs 0.68) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large: 0.04 vs. 0.06; calibration slope: 1.01 vs. 0.92), especially when incorporating auxiliary variables. When the imputation method was based on an external cohort, calibration deteriorated, but discrimination remained similar. We recommend JMI with auxiliary variables for real-time imputation of missing values, and to update imputation models when implementing them in new settings or (sub)populations.Comment: 17 pages, 6 figures, to be published in European Heart Journal - Digital Health, accepted for MEMTAB 2020 conferenc

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA)

Most clinical specialties have a plethora of studies that develop or validate one or more prediction models, for example, to inform diagnosis or prognosis. Having many prediction model studies in a particular clinical field motivates the need for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to evaluate and summarise the overall evidence available from prediction model studies, in particular about the predictive performance of existing models. Such reviews are fast emerging, and should be reported completely, transparently, and accurately. To help ensure this type of reporting, this article describes a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prediction model research

Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed

Objectives: Risk of bias assessments are important in meta-analyses of both aggregate and individual participant data (IPD). There is limited evidence on whether and how risk of bias of included studies or datasets in IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is assessed. We review how risk of bias is currently assessed, reported, and incorporated in IPDMAs of test accuracy and clinical prediction model studies and provide recommendations for improvement. Study Design and Setting: We searched PubMed (January 2018–May 2020) to identify IPDMAs of test accuracy and prediction models, then elicited whether each IPDMA assessed risk of bias of included studies and, if so, how assessments were reported and subsequently incorporated into the IPDMAs. Results: Forty-nine IPDMAs were included. Nineteen of 27 (70%) test accuracy IPDMAs assessed risk of bias, compared to 5 of 22 (23%) prediction model IPDMAs. Seventeen of 19 (89%) test accuracy IPDMAs used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), but no tool was used consistently among prediction model IPDMAs. Of IPDMAs assessing risk of bias, 7 (37%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided details on the information sources (e.g., the original manuscript, IPD, primary investigators) used to inform judgments, and 4 (21%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided information or whether assessments were done before or after obtaining the IPD of the included studies or datasets. Of all included IPDMAs, only seven test accuracy IPDMAs (26%) and one prediction model IPDMA (5%) incorporated risk of bias assessments into their meta-analyses. For future IPDMA projects, we provide guidance on how to adapt tools such as Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (for prediction models) and QUADAS-2 (for test accuracy) to assess risk of bias of included primary studies and their IPD. Conclusion: Risk of bias assessments and their reporting need to be improved in IPDMAs of test accuracy and, especially, prediction model studies. Using recommended tools, both before and after IPD are obtained, will address this

Visualizing the target estimand in comparative effectiveness studies with multiple treatments

Aim: Comparative effectiveness research using real-world data often involves pairwise propensity score matching to adjust for confounding bias. We show that corresponding treatment effect estimates may have limited external validity, and propose two visualization tools to clarify the target estimand. Materials & methods: We conduct a simulation study to demonstrate, with bivariate ellipses and joy plots, that differences in covariate distributions across treatment groups may affect the external validity of treatment effect estimates. We showcase how these visualization tools can facilitate the interpretation of target estimands in a case study comparing the effectiveness of teriflunomide (TERI), dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and natalizumab (NAT) on manual dexterity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Results: In the simulation study, estimates of the treatment effect greatly differed depending on the target population. For example, when comparing treatment B with C, the estimated treatment effect (and respective standard error) varied from -0.27 (0.03) to -0.37 (0.04) in the type of patients initially receiving treatment B and C, respectively. Visualization of the matched samples revealed that covariate distributions vary for each comparison and cannot be used to target one common treatment effect for the three treatment comparisons. In the case study, the bivariate distribution of age and disease duration varied across the population of patients receiving TERI, DMF or NAT. Although results suggest that DMF and NAT improve manual dexterity at 1 year compared with TERI, the effectiveness of DMF versus NAT differs depending on which target estimand is used. Conclusion: Visualization tools may help to clarify the target population in comparative effectiveness studies and resolve ambiguity about the interpretation of estimated treatment effects

Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed

Objectives: Risk of bias assessments are important in meta-analyses of both aggregate and individual participant data (IPD). There is limited evidence on whether and how risk of bias of included studies or datasets in IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is assessed. We review how risk of bias is currently assessed, reported, and incorporated in IPDMAs of test accuracy and clinical prediction model studies and provide recommendations for improvement. Study Design and Setting: We searched PubMed (January 2018–May 2020) to identify IPDMAs of test accuracy and prediction models, then elicited whether each IPDMA assessed risk of bias of included studies and, if so, how assessments were reported and subsequently incorporated into the IPDMAs. Results: Forty-nine IPDMAs were included. Nineteen of 27 (70%) test accuracy IPDMAs assessed risk of bias, compared to 5 of 22 (23%) prediction model IPDMAs. Seventeen of 19 (89%) test accuracy IPDMAs used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), but no tool was used consistently among prediction model IPDMAs. Of IPDMAs assessing risk of bias, 7 (37%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided details on the information sources (e.g., the original manuscript, IPD, primary investigators) used to inform judgments, and 4 (21%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided information or whether assessments were done before or after obtaining the IPD of the included studies or datasets. Of all included IPDMAs, only seven test accuracy IPDMAs (26%) and one prediction model IPDMA (5%) incorporated risk of bias assessments into their meta-analyses. For future IPDMA projects, we provide guidance on how to adapt tools such as Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (for prediction models) and QUADAS-2 (for test accuracy) to assess risk of bias of included primary studies and their IPD. Conclusion: Risk of bias assessments and their reporting need to be improved in IPDMAs of test accuracy and, especially, prediction model studies. Using recommended tools, both before and after IPD are obtained, will address this