Loukia M Spineli1, Katerina Papadimitropoulou2,3, Chrysostomos Kalyvas4. 1. Midwifery Research and Education Unit (OE 9210), Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Spineli.Loukia@mh-hannover.de. 2. Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Data Science and Biometrics, Danone Nutricia Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Biostatistics and Research Decision Sciences, MSD Europe Inc, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trials with binary outcomes can be synthesised using within-trial exact likelihood or approximate normal likelihood in one-stage or two-stage approaches, respectively. The performance of the one-stage and the two-stage approaches has been documented extensively in the literature. However, little is known about how these approaches behave in the presence of missing outcome data (MOD), which are ubiquitous in clinical trials. In this work, we compare the one-stage versus two-stage approach via a pattern-mixture model in the network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods to handle MOD appropriately. METHODS: We used 29 published networks to empirically compare the two approaches concerning the relative treatment effects of several competing interventions and the between-trial variance (τ2), while considering the extent and level of balance of MOD in the included trials. We additionally conducted a simulation study to compare the competing approaches regarding the bias and width of the 95% credible interval of the (summary) log odds ratios (OR) and τ2 in the presence of moderate and large MOD. RESULTS: The empirical study did not reveal any systematic bias between the compared approaches regarding the log OR, but showed systematically larger uncertainty around the log OR under the one-stage approach for networks with at least one small trial or low event risk and moderate MOD. For these networks, the simulation study revealed that the bias in log OR for comparisons with the reference intervention in the network was relatively higher in the two-stage approach. Contrariwise, the bias in log OR for the remaining comparisons was relatively higher in the one-stage approach. Overall, bias increased for large MOD. For these networks, the empirical results revealed slightly higher τ2 estimates under the one-stage approach irrespective of the extent of MOD. The one-stage approach also led to less precise log OR and τ2 when compared with the two-stage approach for large MOD. CONCLUSIONS: Due to considerable bias in the log ORs overall, especially for large MOD, none of the competing approaches was superior. Until a more competent model is developed, the researchers may prefer the one-stage approach to handle MOD, while acknowledging its limitations.
BACKGROUND: Trials with binary outcomes can be synthesised using within-trial exact likelihood or approximate normal likelihood in one-stage or two-stage approaches, respectively. The performance of the one-stage and the two-stage approaches has been documented extensively in the literature. However, little is known about how these approaches behave in the presence of missing outcome data (MOD), which are ubiquitous in clinical trials. In this work, we compare the one-stage versus two-stage approach via a pattern-mixture model in the network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods to handle MOD appropriately. METHODS: We used 29 published networks to empirically compare the two approaches concerning the relative treatment effects of several competing interventions and the between-trial variance (τ2), while considering the extent and level of balance of MOD in the included trials. We additionally conducted a simulation study to compare the competing approaches regarding the bias and width of the 95% credible interval of the (summary) log odds ratios (OR) and τ2 in the presence of moderate and large MOD. RESULTS: The empirical study did not reveal any systematic bias between the compared approaches regarding the log OR, but showed systematically larger uncertainty around the log OR under the one-stage approach for networks with at least one small trial or low event risk and moderate MOD. For these networks, the simulation study revealed that the bias in log OR for comparisons with the reference intervention in the network was relatively higher in the two-stage approach. Contrariwise, the bias in log OR for the remaining comparisons was relatively higher in the one-stage approach. Overall, bias increased for large MOD. For these networks, the empirical results revealed slightly higher τ2 estimates under the one-stage approach irrespective of the extent of MOD. The one-stage approach also led to less precise log OR and τ2 when compared with the two-stage approach for large MOD. CONCLUSIONS: Due to considerable bias in the log ORs overall, especially for large MOD, none of the competing approaches was superior. Until a more competent model is developed, the researchers may prefer the one-stage approach to handle MOD, while acknowledging its limitations.
Authors: Lara A Kahale; Batoul Diab; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Arnav Agarwal; Reem A Mustafa; Joey Kwong; Ignacio Neumann; Ling Li; Luciane Cruz Lopes; Matthias Briel; Jason W Busse; Alfonso Iorio; Per Olav Vandvik; Paul Elias Alexander; Gordon Guyatt; Elie A Akl Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 6.437