Literature DB >> 33435879

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

Steve Kanters1, Mohammad Ehsanul Karim2,3, Kristian Thorlund4, Aslam Anis2,3, Nick Bansback2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of individual patient data (IPD) in network meta-analyses (NMA) is rapidly growing. This study aimed to determine, through simulations, the impact of select factors on the validity and precision of NMA estimates when combining IPD and aggregate data (AgD) relative to using AgD only.
METHODS: Three analysis strategies were compared via simulations: 1) AgD NMA without adjustments (AgD-NMA); 2) AgD NMA with meta-regression (AgD-NMA-MR); and 3) IPD-AgD NMA with meta-regression (IPD-NMA). We compared 108 parameter permutations: number of network nodes (3, 5 or 10); proportion of treatment comparisons informed by IPD (low, medium or high); equal size trials (2-armed with 200 patients per arm) or larger IPD trials (500 patients per arm); sparse or well-populated networks; and type of effect-modification (none, constant across treatment comparisons, or exchangeable). Data were generated over 200 simulations for each combination of parameters, each using linear regression with Normal distributions. To assess model performance and estimate validity, the mean squared error (MSE) and bias of treatment-effect and covariate estimates were collected. Standard errors (SE) and percentiles were used to compare estimate precision.
RESULTS: Overall, IPD-NMA performed best in terms of validity and precision. The median MSE was lower in the IPD-NMA in 88 of 108 scenarios (similar results otherwise). On average, the IPD-NMA median MSE was 0.54 times the median using AgD-NMA-MR. Similarly, the SEs of the IPD-NMA treatment-effect estimates were 1/5 the size of AgD-NMA-MR SEs. The magnitude of superior validity and precision of using IPD-NMA varied across scenarios and was associated with the amount of IPD. Using IPD in small or sparse networks consistently led to improved validity and precision; however, in large/dense networks IPD tended to have negligible impact if too few IPD were included. Similar results also apply to the meta-regression coefficient estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation study suggests that the use of IPD in NMA will considerably improve the validity and precision of estimates of treatment effect and regression coefficients in the most NMA IPD data-scenarios. However, IPD may not add meaningful validity and precision to NMAs of large and dense treatment networks when negligible IPD are used.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IPD; Individual patient data; Methods; NMA; Network meta-analyses; Simulation study

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33435879      PMCID: PMC7805229          DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01198-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol        ISSN: 1471-2288            Impact factor:   4.615


  11 in total

1.  Improving ecological inference using individual-level data.

Authors:  Christopher Jackson; Nicky Best; Sylvia Richardson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

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

Authors:  Joy Leahy; Aisling O'Leary; Nezam Afdhal; Emma Gray; Scott Milligan; Malte H Wehmeyer; Cathal Walsh
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 5.273

3.  Combining individual patient data and aggregate data in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: Individual patient data may be beneficial if only for a subset of trials.

Authors:  Sarah Donegan; Paula Williamson; Umberto D'Alessandro; Paul Garner; Catrin Tudur Smith
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  James E Signorovitch; Vanja Sikirica; M Haim Erder; Jipan Xie; Mei Lu; Paul S Hodgkins; Keith A Betts; Eric Q Wu
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  The design of simulation studies in medical statistics.

Authors:  Andrea Burton; Douglas G Altman; Patrick Royston; Roger L Holder
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity--subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment.

Authors:  Sofia Dias; Alex J Sutton; Nicky J Welton; A E Ades
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data.

Authors:  Pedro Saramago; Alex J Sutton; Nicola J Cooper; Andrea Manca
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks.

Authors:  Adriani Nikolakopoulou; Anna Chaimani; Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Haris S Vasiliadis; Christopher H Schmid; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data.

Authors:  Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Sharon E Straus; Charlene Soobiah; Meghan J Elliott; Andrea C Tricco
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  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

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparing the use of aggregate data and various methods of integrating individual patient data to network meta-analysis and its application to first-line ART.

Authors:  Steve Kanters; Mohammad Ehsanul Karim; Kristian Thorlund; Aslam H Anis; Michael Zoratti; Nick Bansback
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 4.615

2.  Sex differences and adverse events of antiretrovirals in people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Authors:  Jardel Corrêa de Oliveira; Maíra Ramos Alves; Luis Phillipe Nagem Lopes; Rodrigo Suguimoto Iwami; Fabiane Raquel Motter; Cristiane de Cássia Bergamaschi; Marcus Tolentino Silva; Alexander Itria; Diogo Luis Scalco; Donavan de Souza Lucio; Lauren Giustti Mazzei; Rodrigo D'Agostini Derech; Tiago Veiga Pereira; Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto; Luciane Cruz Lopes
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.