Literature DB >> 32643264

Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: Using pseudo IPD created from aggregate data to adjust for baseline imbalance and assess treatment-by-baseline modification.

Katerina Papadimitropoulou1,2, Theo Stijnen3, Richard D Riley4, Olaf M Dekkers1, Saskia le Cessie1,3.   

Abstract

Meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) is considered the "gold-standard" for synthesizing clinical study evidence. However, gaining access to IPD can be a laborious task (if possible at all) and in practice only summary (aggregate) data are commonly available. In this work we focus on meta-analytic approaches of comparative studies where aggregate data are available for continuous outcomes measured at baseline (pre-treatment) and follow-up (post-treatment). We propose a method for constructing pseudo individual baselines and outcomes based on the aggregate data. These pseudo IPD can be subsequently analysed using standard analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods. Pseudo IPD for continuous outcomes reported at two timepoints can be generated using the sufficient statistics of an ANCOVA model, i.e., the mean and standard deviation at baseline and follow-up per group, together with the correlation of the baseline and follow-up measurements. Applying the ANCOVA approach, which crucially adjusts for baseline imbalances and accounts for the correlation between baseline and change scores, to the pseudo IPD, results in identical estimates to the ones obtained by an ANCOVA on the true IPD. In addition, an interaction term between baseline and treatment effect can be added. There are several modeling options available under this approach, which makes it very flexible. Methods are exemplified using reported data of a previously published IPD meta-analysis of 10 trials investigating the effect of antihypertensive treatments on systolic blood pressure, leading to identical results compared with the true IPD analysis and of a meta-analysis of fewer trials, where baseline imbalance occurred.
© 2020 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ANCOVA; meta-analysis; pseudo individual participant data; sufficient statistics

Year:  2020        PMID: 32643264      PMCID: PMC7754323          DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1434

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


  32 in total

1.  A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  P C Lambert; A J Sutton; K R Abrams; D R Jones
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Commentary: like it and lump it? Meta-analysis using individual participant data.

Authors:  Richard D Riley
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-07-26       Impact factor: 7.196

3.  Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data.

Authors:  Richard D Riley; Paul C Lambert; Jan A Staessen; Jiguang Wang; Francois Gueyffier; Lutgarde Thijs; Florent Boutitie
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group.

Authors:  L Liu; J G Wang; L Gong; G Liu; J A Staessen
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.844

5.  Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators.

Authors:  J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-09-13       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

Review 7.  Systolic and diastolic blood pressure lowering as determinants of cardiovascular outcome.

Authors:  Ji-Guang Wang; Jan A Staessen; Stanley S Franklin; Robert Fagard; François Gueyffier
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2005-04-18       Impact factor: 10.190

8.  To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data.

Authors:  Lesley A Stewart; Jayne F Tierney
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.651

9.  Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

Authors:  Patricia Guyot; A E Ades; Mario J N M Ouwens; Nicky J Welton
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christopher J Weir; Isabella Butcher; Valentina Assi; Stephanie C Lewis; Gordon D Murray; Peter Langhorne; Marian C Brady
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Natalie Yl Ngoi; Nicholas Lx Syn; Robby M Goh; Boon Cher Goh; Ruby Yun-Ju Huang; Yu Yang Soon; Elizabeth James; Adrian Cook; Andrew Clamp; David Sp Tan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-02-21

2.  Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: Using pseudo IPD created from aggregate data to adjust for baseline imbalance and assess treatment-by-baseline modification.

Authors:  Katerina Papadimitropoulou; Theo Stijnen; Richard D Riley; Olaf M Dekkers; Saskia le Cessie
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 5.273

3.  Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A One-Stage Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas W S Chew; Jin Hean Koh; Cheng Han Ng; Darren Jun Hao Tan; Jie Ning Yong; Chaoxing Lin; Oliver Zi-Hern Lim; Yip Han Chin; Denzel Ming Wei Lim; Koo Hui Chan; Poay-Huan Loh; Adrian Low; Chi-Hang Lee; Huay-Cheem Tan; Mark Chan
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-03-25

4.  Association of Anticancer Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors With Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessed in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laura Pala; Isabella Sala; Chiara Oriecuia; Tommaso De Pas; Paola Queirolo; Claudia Specchia; Emilia Cocorocchio; Pierfrancesco Ferrucci; Damiano Patanè; Maristella Saponara; Elisabetta Pennacchioli; Sara Coppola; Giuseppe Viale; Giuseppe Giaccone; Richard D Gelber; Vincenzo Bagnardi; Fabio Conforti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-08-01

5.  MA-cont:pre/post effect size: An interactive tool for the meta-analysis of continuous outcomes using R Shiny.

Authors:  Katerina Papadimitropoulou; Richard D Riley; Olaf M Dekkers; Theo Stijnen; Saskia le Cessie
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 9.308

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.