Literature DB >> 22786621

Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: individual patient-level covariates versus aggregate trial-level covariates.

Sarah Donegan1, Paula Williamson, Umberto D'Alessandro, Catrin Tudur Smith.   

Abstract

Mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis allows several treatments to be compared in a single analysis while utilising direct and indirect evidence. Treatment by covariate interactions can be included in MTC models to explore how the covariate modifies the treatment effects. If interactions exist, the assumptions underlying MTCs may be invalidated. For conventional pair-wise meta-analysis, important benefits regarding the investigation of such interactions, gained from using individual patient data (IPD) rather than aggregate data (AD), have been described. We aim to compare IPD MTC models including patient-level covariates with AD MTC models including study-level covariates. IPD and AD random-effects MTC models for dichotomous outcomes are specified. Three assumptions are made regarding the interactions (i.e. independent, exchangeable and common interactions). The models are applied to a dataset to compare four drugs for treating malaria (i.e. amodiaquine-artesunate, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAPQ), artemether-lumefantrine and chlorproguanil-dapsone plus artesunate) using the outcome unadjusted treatment success at day 28. The treatment effects and regression coefficients for interactions from the IPD models were more precise than those from AD models. Using IPD, assuming independent or exchangeable interactions, the regression coefficient for chlorproguanil-dapsone plus artesunate versus DHAPQ was statistically significant and assuming common interactions, the common coefficient was significant; whereas using AD, no coefficients were significant. Using IPD, DHAPQ was the best drug; whereas using AD, the best drug varied. Using AD models, there was no evidence that the consistency assumption was invalid; whereas, the assumption was questionable based on the IPD models. The AD analyses were misleading.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22786621     DOI: 10.1002/sim.5470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  20 in total

1.  Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Suzanne C Freeman
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

Review 2.  Methods and characteristics of published network meta-analyses using individual patient data: protocol for a scoping review.

Authors:  Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Charlene Soobiah; Andrea C Tricco; Meghan J Elliott; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity--subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment.

Authors:  Sofia Dias; Alex J Sutton; Nicky J Welton; A E Ades
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data.

Authors:  Sally Hollis; Christine Fletcher; Frances Lynn; Hans-Joerg Urban; Janice Branson; Hans-Ulrich Burger; Catrin Tudur Smith; Matthew R Sydes; Christoph Gerlinger
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  A process for assessing the feasibility of a network meta-analysis: a case study of everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy versus chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Shannon Cope; Jie Zhang; Stephen Saletan; Brielan Smiechowski; Jeroen P Jansen; Peter Schmid
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2014-06-05       Impact factor: 8.775

6.  Sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: an opinion survey regarding the establishment of a central repository.

Authors:  Catrin Tudur Smith; Kerry Dwan; Douglas G Altman; Mike Clarke; Richard Riley; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data.

Authors:  Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Sharon E Straus; Charlene Soobiah; Meghan J Elliott; Andrea C Tricco
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 8.  Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology.

Authors:  Thomas P A Debray; Karel G M Moons; Gert van Valkenhoef; Orestis Efthimiou; Noemi Hummel; Rolf H H Groenwold; Johannes B Reitsma
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 5.273

9.  Methods for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes using individual patient data: a case study in acupuncture for chronic pain.

Authors:  Pedro Saramago; Beth Woods; Helen Weatherly; Andrea Manca; Mark Sculpher; Kamran Khan; Andrew J Vickers; Hugh MacPherson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Comparative safety and effectiveness of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's dementia: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Sharon E Straus; Huda M Ashoor; Jemila S Hamid; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Sumit R Majumdar; Glenn McAuley; Andrea C Tricco
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.