Deborah R Zucker1, Robin Ruthazer, Christopher H Schmid. 1. Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, 800 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA. dzucker@post.harvard.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare different statistical models for combining N-of-1 trials to estimate a population treatment effect. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data from a published series of N-of-1 trials comparing amitriptyline (AMT) therapy and combination treatment (AMT+fluoxetine [FL]) were analyzed to compare summary and individual participant data meta-analysis; repeated-measure models; Bayesian hierarchical models; and single-period, single-pair, and averaged outcome crossover models. RESULTS: The best-fitting model included a random intercept (response on AMT) and fixed treatment effect (added FL). Results supported a common, uncorrelated within-patient covariance structure that is equal between treatments and across patients. Assuming unequal within-patient variances, a random-effect model was favored. Bayesian hierarchical models improved precision and were highly sensitive to within-patient variance priors. CONCLUSION: Optimal models for combining N-of-1 trials need to consider goals, data sources, and relative within- and between-patient variances. Without sufficient patients, between-patient variation will be hard to explain with covariates. N-of-1 data with few observations per patients may not support models with heterogeneous within-patient variation. With common variances, models appear robust. Bayesian models may improve parameter estimation but are sensitive to prior assumptions about variance components. With limited resources, improving within-patient precision must be balanced by increased participants to explain population variation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare different statistical models for combining N-of-1 trials to estimate a population treatment effect. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data from a published series of N-of-1 trials comparing amitriptyline (AMT) therapy and combination treatment (AMT+fluoxetine [FL]) were analyzed to compare summary and individual participant data meta-analysis; repeated-measure models; Bayesian hierarchical models; and single-period, single-pair, and averaged outcome crossover models. RESULTS: The best-fitting model included a random intercept (response on AMT) and fixed treatment effect (added FL). Results supported a common, uncorrelated within-patient covariance structure that is equal between treatments and across patients. Assuming unequal within-patient variances, a random-effect model was favored. Bayesian hierarchical models improved precision and were highly sensitive to within-patient variance priors. CONCLUSION: Optimal models for combining N-of-1 trials need to consider goals, data sources, and relative within- and between-patient variances. Without sufficient patients, between-patient variation will be hard to explain with covariates. N-of-1 data with few observations per patients may not support models with heterogeneous within-patient variation. With common variances, models appear robust. Bayesian models may improve parameter estimation but are sensitive to prior assumptions about variance components. With limited resources, improving within-patient precision must be balanced by increased participants to explain population variation.
Authors: T Johannessen; H Petersen; P Kristensen; D Fosstvedt; P M Kleveland; J Dybdahl; I Løge Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 1992 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Susan M Czajkowski; Lynda H Powell; Nancy Adler; Sylvie Naar-King; Kim D Reynolds; Christine M Hunter; Barbara Laraia; Deborah H Olster; Frank M Perna; Janey C Peterson; Elissa Epel; Josephine E Boyington; Mary E Charlson Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Shobha Srinivasan; Richard P Moser; Gordon Willis; William Riley; Mark Alexander; David Berrigan; Sarah Kobrin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sonya L Heltshe; Jonathan Cogen; Kathleen J Ramos; Christopher H Goss Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405