Literature DB >> 26061599

Linear inference for mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: A two-stage approach.

Guobing Lu1, Nicky J Welton1, Julian P T Higgins2, Ian R White2, A E Ades1.   

Abstract

Mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis synthesises comparative evidence on multiple treatments or other interventions from a collection of randomised controlled trials (RCT) available in a research area, while still respecting the randomisation structure in RCTs. This paper sets out to examine the properties of MTC estimates and elucidate the concept of consistency between direct and indirect evidence in MTC networks. We decompose MTC synthesis into two stages. At the first stage, ordinary meta-analysis is performed in each group of trials that have the same treatment comparators-this provides the 'direct' estimates of relative effect parameters. At the second stage, the optimal consistent estimates that minimise the distance between the direct estimates and the consistency hyper-plane can be deduced as the weighted least squares solution to a linear regression model with a specific design matrix that represents the consistency conditions. The consistent MTC estimates can then be represented explicitly as linear combinations of direct estimates, and under normality assumptions the overall evidence consistency can be tested with a likelihood-ratio statistic. This two-stage framework further allows us to use the leverage statistics to diagnose influence of the first-stage evidence and use the regression residuals to assess local inconsistency. The method is illustrated with two examples from medical research.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  consistency equations; diagnosis for evidence inconsistency; mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis; multi‐arm trials; two‐stage model

Year:  2011        PMID: 26061599     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.34

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Synth Methods        ISSN: 1759-2879            Impact factor:   5.273


  28 in total

1.  Detecting outlying trials in network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jing Zhang; Haoda Fu; Bradley P Carlin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Sensitivity of treatment recommendations to bias in network meta-analysis.

Authors:  David M Phillippo; Sofia Dias; A E Ades; Vanessa Didelez; Nicky J Welton
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 2.483

3.  A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons.

Authors:  Hwanhee Hong; Haitao Chu; Jing Zhang; Bradley P Carlin
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 5.273

4.  Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies.

Authors:  J P T Higgins; D Jackson; J K Barrett; G Lu; A E Ades; I R White
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.273

5.  Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression.

Authors:  Ian R White; Jessica K Barrett; Dan Jackson; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.273

6.  A method for assessing robustness of the results of a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unidentifiable consistency assumption.

Authors:  Jeong-Hwa Yoon; Sofia Dias; Seokyung Hahn
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Modelling heterogeneity variances in multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis--are informative priors the better solution?

Authors:  Kristian Thorlund; Lehana Thabane; Edward J Mills
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses.

Authors:  Ulrike Krahn; Harald Binder; Jochem König
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-03-09       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA.

Authors:  Anna Chaimani; Julian P T Higgins; Dimitris Mavridis; Panagiota Spyridonos; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Network-meta analysis made easy: detection of inconsistency using factorial analysis-of-variance models.

Authors:  Hans-Peter Piepho
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.