Literature DB >> 25225031

Using conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform the design of future clinical trials.

Adriani Nikolakopoulou1, Dimitris Mavridis, Georgia Salanti.   

Abstract

Clinical trials are typically designed with an aim to reach sufficient power to test a hypothesis about relative effectiveness of two or more interventions. Their role in informing evidence-based decision-making demands, however, that they are considered in the context of the existing evidence. Consequently, their planning can be informed by characteristics of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In the presence of multiple competing interventions the evidence base has the form of a network of trials, which provides information not only about the required sample size but also about the interventions that should be compared in a future trial. In this paper we present a methodology to evaluate the impact of new studies, their information size, the comparisons involved, and the anticipated heterogeneity on the conditional power (CP) of the updated network meta-analysis. The methods presented are an extension of the idea of CP initially suggested for a pairwise meta-analysis and we show how to estimate the required sample size using various combinations of direct and indirect evidence in future trials. We apply the methods to two previously published networks and we show that CP for a treatment comparison is dependent on the magnitude of heterogeneity and the ratio of direct to indirect information in existing and future trials for that comparison. Our methodology can help investigators calculate the required sample size under different assumptions about heterogeneity and make decisions about the number and design of future studies (set of treatments compared).
© 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Indirect evidence; Mixed treatment comparison; Multiple treatments; Network meta-analysis (NMA); Sample size

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25225031     DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201300216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  12 in total

1.  Perspective: Network Meta-analysis Reaches Nutrition Research: Current Status, Scientific Concepts, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Lukas Schwingshackl; Guido Schwarzer; Gerta Rücker; Joerg J Meerpohl
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 8.701

2.  Comparing the diagnostic performance of radiotracers in recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ian Leigh Alberts; Svenja Elizabeth Seide; Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Kuangyu Shi; Helle D Zacho; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-02-06       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lisa Holper
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 3.630

4.  Continuously updated network meta-analysis and statistical monitoring for timely decision-making.

Authors:  Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Dimitris Mavridis; Matthias Egger; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  The inclusion of real world evidence in clinical development planning.

Authors:  Reynaldo Martina; David Jenkins; Sylwia Bujkiewicz; Pascale Dequen; Keith Abrams
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Synthesizing existing evidence to design future trials: survey of methodologists from European institutions.

Authors:  Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Sven Trelle; Alex J Sutton; Matthias Egger; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer.

Authors:  Perrine Créquit; Ludovic Trinquart; Amélie Yavchitz; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 8.775

8.  Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Rebecca Turner
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 5.273

9.  Planning a future randomized clinical trial based on a network of relevant past trials.

Authors:  Georgia Salanti; Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Alex J Sutton; Stephan Reichenbach; Sven Trelle; Huseyin Naci; Matthias Egger
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly.

Authors:  Daria Kim; Joerg Hasford
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.