Literature DB >> 29923679

The impact of individual patient data in a network meta-analysis: An investigation into parameter estimation and model selection.

Joy Leahy1, Aisling O'Leary2, Nezam Afdhal3, Emma Gray4, Scott Milligan5, Malte H Wehmeyer6, Cathal Walsh2,7.   

Abstract

The use of individual patient data (IPD) in network meta-analysis (NMA) is becoming increasingly popular. However, as most studies do not report IPD, most NMAs are performed using aggregate data for at least some, if not all, of the studies. We investigate the benefits of including varying proportions of IPD studies in an NMA. Several models have previously been developed for including both aggregate data and IPD in the same NMA. We performed a simulation study based on these models to examine the impact of additional IPD studies on the accuracy and precision of the estimates of both the treatment effect and the covariate effect. We also compared the deviance information criterion (DIC) between models to assess model fit. An increased proportion of IPD resulted in more accurate and precise estimates for most models and datasets. However, the coverage probability sometimes decreased when the model was misspecified. The use of IPD leads to greater differences in DIC, which allows us choose the correct model more often. We analysed a Hepatitis C network consisting of 3 IPD observational studies. The ranking of treatments remained the same for all models and datasets. We observed similar results to the simulation study: The use of IPD leads to differences in DIC and more precise estimates for the covariate effect. However, IPD sometimes increased the posterior SD of the treatment effect estimate, which may indicate between study heterogeneity. We recommend that IPD should be used where possible, especially for assessing model fit.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29923679     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1305

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


  6 in total

1.  Systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aaron Mark Drucker; Alexandra Ellis; Zarif Jabbar-Lopez; Zenas Z N Yiu; Bernd W M Arents; Tim Burton; Phyllis I Spuls; Denise Küster; Jochen Schmitt; Carsten Flohr
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 2.  A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines.

Authors:  Ellesha A Smith; Nicola J Cooper; Alex J Sutton; Keith R Abrams; Stephanie J Hubbard
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  When does the use of individual patient data in network meta-analysis make a difference? A simulation study.

Authors:  Steve Kanters; Mohammad Ehsanul Karim; Kristian Thorlund; Aslam Anis; Nick Bansback
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Anna Pellat; Isabelle Boutron; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 5.  Interpreting and assessing confidence in network meta-analysis results: an introduction for clinicians.

Authors:  Alan Yang; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Kazuyoshi Aoyama
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 2.931

6.  Conduct and reporting of individual participant data network meta-analyses need improvement.

Authors:  Anna Chaimani
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 8.775

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.