Literature DB >> 33368415

Comparing methods for estimating patient-specific treatment effects in individual patient data meta-analysis.

Michael Seo1,2, Ian R White3, Toshi A Furukawa4, Hissei Imai4, Marco Valgimigli5, Matthias Egger1, Marcel Zwahlen1, Orestis Efthimiou1.   

Abstract

Meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) is increasingly used to synthesize data from multiple trials. IPD meta-analysis offers several advantages over meta-analyzing aggregate data, including the capacity to individualize treatment recommendations. Trials usually collect information on many patient characteristics. Some of these covariates may strongly interact with treatment (and thus be associated with treatment effect modification) while others may have little effect. It is currently unclear whether a systematic approach to the selection of treatment-covariate interactions in an IPD meta-analysis can lead to better estimates of patient-specific treatment effects. We aimed to answer this question by comparing in simulations the standard approach to IPD meta-analysis (no variable selection, all treatment-covariate interactions included in the model) with six alternative methods: stepwise regression, and five regression methods that perform shrinkage on treatment-covariate interactions, that is, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), ridge, adaptive LASSO, Bayesian LASSO, and stochastic search variable selection. Exploring a range of scenarios, we found that shrinkage methods performed well for both continuous and dichotomous outcomes, for a variety of settings. In most scenarios, these methods gave lower mean squared error of the patient-specific treatment effect as compared with the standard approach and stepwise regression. We illustrate the application of these methods in two datasets from cardiology and psychiatry. We recommend that future IPD meta-analysis that aim to estimate patient-specific treatment effects using multiple effect modifiers should use shrinkage methods, whereas stepwise regression should be avoided.
© 2020 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian analysis; individual patient data; meta-regression; shrinkage; variable selection

Year:  2020        PMID: 33368415      PMCID: PMC7898845          DOI: 10.1002/sim.8859

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


  24 in total

1.  Stepwise selection in small data sets: a simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis.

Authors:  E W Steyerberg; M J Eijkemans; J D Habbema
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?

Authors:  Simon G Thompson; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology.

Authors:  Orestis Efthimiou; Thomas P A Debray; Gert van Valkenhoef; Sven Trelle; Klea Panayidou; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma; Aijing Shang; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 5.273

4.  Exploratory analyses of effect modifiers in the antidepressant treatment of major depression: Individual-participant data meta-analysis of 2803 participants in seven placebo-controlled randomized trials.

Authors:  Hisashi Noma; Toshi A Furukawa; Kazushi Maruo; Hissei Imai; Kiyomi Shinohara; Shiro Tanaka; Kazutaka Ikeda; Shigeto Yamawaki; Andrea Cipriani
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 4.839

5.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent.

Authors:  Jerome Friedman; Trevor Hastie; Rob Tibshirani
Journal:  J Stat Softw       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 6.440

6.  Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?

Authors:  David J Fisher; James R Carpenter; Tim P Morris; Suzanne C Freeman; Jayne F Tierney
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-03-03

7.  Individual participant data meta-analysis for a binary outcome: one-stage or two-stage?

Authors:  Thomas P A Debray; Karel G M Moons; Ghada Mohammed Abdallah Abo-Zaid; Hendrik Koffijberg; Richard David Riley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

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.  Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis.

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

10.  Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data.

Authors:  Kirsty M Rhodes; Rebecca M Turner; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  5 in total

1.  Dismantling, optimising, and personalising internet cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis using individual participant data.

Authors:  Toshi A Furukawa; Aya Suganuma; Edoardo G Ostinelli; Gerhard Andersson; Christopher G Beevers; Jason Shumake; Thomas Berger; Florien Willemijn Boele; Claudia Buntrock; Per Carlbring; Isabella Choi; Helen Christensen; Andrew Mackinnon; Jennifer Dahne; Marcus J H Huibers; David D Ebert; Louise Farrer; Nicholas R Forand; Daniel R Strunk; Iony D Ezawa; Erik Forsell; Viktor Kaldo; Anna Geraedts; Simon Gilbody; Elizabeth Littlewood; Sally Brabyn; Heather D Hadjistavropoulos; Luke H Schneider; Robert Johansson; Robin Kenter; Marie Kivi; Cecilia Björkelund; Annet Kleiboer; Heleen Riper; Jan Philipp Klein; Johanna Schröder; Björn Meyer; Steffen Moritz; Lara Bücker; Ove Lintvedt; Peter Johansson; Johan Lundgren; Jeannette Milgrom; Alan W Gemmill; David C Mohr; Jesus Montero-Marin; Javier Garcia-Campayo; Stephanie Nobis; Anna-Carlotta Zarski; Kathleen O'Moore; Alishia D Williams; Jill M Newby; Sarah Perini; Rachel Phillips; Justine Schneider; Wendy Pots; Nicole E Pugh; Derek Richards; Isabelle M Rosso; Scott L Rauch; Lisa B Sheeber; Jessica Smith; Viola Spek; Victor J Pop; Burçin Ünlü; Kim M P van Bastelaar; Sanne van Luenen; Nadia Garnefski; Vivian Kraaij; Kristofer Vernmark; Lisanne Warmerdam; Annemieke van Straten; Pavle Zagorscak; Christine Knaevelsrud; Manuel Heinrich; Clara Miguel; Andrea Cipriani; Orestis Efthimiou; Eirini Karyotaki; Pim Cuijpers
Journal:  Lancet Psychiatry       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 77.056

2.  Comparing methods for estimating patient-specific treatment effects in individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael Seo; Ian R White; Toshi A Furukawa; Hissei Imai; Marco Valgimigli; Matthias Egger; Marcel Zwahlen; Orestis Efthimiou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-12-27       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.

Authors:  Michael Seo; Thomas Pa Debray; Yann Ruffieux; Sandro Gsteiger; Sylwia Bujkiewicz; Axel Finckh; Matthias Egger; Orestis Efthimiou
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 2.494

4.  Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Orestis Efthimiou; Michael Seo; Eirini Karyotaki; Pim Cuijpers; Toshi A Furukawa; Guido Schwarzer; Gerta Rücker; Dimitris Mavridis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  A two-stage prediction model for heterogeneous effects of treatments.

Authors:  Konstantina Chalkou; Ewout Steyerberg; Matthias Egger; Andrea Manca; Fabio Pellegrini; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.497

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.