Harriet L Mills1,2, Julian P T Higgins1,2,3, Richard W Morris2, David Kessler2,3, Jon Heron1,2, Nicola Wiles2,3, George Davey Smith1,2, Kate Tilling1,2,3. 1. From the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 2. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 3. National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with continuous outcomes usually only examine mean differences in response between trial arms. If the intervention has heterogeneous effects, then outcome variances will also differ between arms. Power of an individual trial to assess heterogeneity is lower than the power to detect the same size of main effect. METHODS: We describe several methods for assessing differences in variance in trial arms and apply them to a single trial with individual patient data and to meta-analyses using summary data. Where individual data are available, we use regression-based methods to examine the effects of covariates on variation. We present an additional method to meta-analyze differences in variances with summary data. RESULTS: In the single trial, there was agreement between methods, and the difference in variance was largely due to differences in prevalence of depression at baseline. In two meta-analyses, most individual trials did not show strong evidence of a difference in variance between arms, with wide confidence intervals. However, both meta-analyses showed evidence of greater variance in the control arm, and in one example, this was perhaps because mean outcome in the control arm was higher. CONCLUSIONS: Using meta-analysis, we overcame low power of individual trials to examine differences in variance using meta-analysis. Evidence of differences in variance should be followed up to identify potential effect modifiers and explore other possible causes such as varying compliance.
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with continuous outcomes usually only examine mean differences in response between trial arms. If the intervention has heterogeneous effects, then outcome variances will also differ between arms. Power of an individual trial to assess heterogeneity is lower than the power to detect the same size of main effect. METHODS: We describe several methods for assessing differences in variance in trial arms and apply them to a single trial with individual patient data and to meta-analyses using summary data. Where individual data are available, we use regression-based methods to examine the effects of covariates on variation. We present an additional method to meta-analyze differences in variances with summary data. RESULTS: In the single trial, there was agreement between methods, and the difference in variance was largely due to differences in prevalence of depression at baseline. In two meta-analyses, most individual trials did not show strong evidence of a difference in variance between arms, with wide confidence intervals. However, both meta-analyses showed evidence of greater variance in the control arm, and in one example, this was perhaps because mean outcome in the control arm was higher. CONCLUSIONS: Using meta-analysis, we overcame low power of individual trials to examine differences in variance using meta-analysis. Evidence of differences in variance should be followed up to identify potential effect modifiers and explore other possible causes such as varying compliance.
Authors: Sara T Brookes; Elise Whitely; Matthias Egger; George Davey Smith; Paul A Mulheran; Tim J Peters Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Rebecca A Crow; Kimberly A Hart; Michael P McDermott; Rabi Tawil; William B Martens; Barbara E Herr; Elaine McColl; Jennifer Wilkinson; Janbernd Kirschner; Wendy M King; Michele Eagle; Mary W Brown; Deborah Hirtz; Hanns Lochmuller; Volker Straub; Emma Ciafaloni; Perry B Shieh; Stefan Spinty; Anne-Marie Childs; Adnan Y Manzur; Lucia Morandi; Russell J Butterfield; Iain Horrocks; Helen Roper; Kevin M Flanigan; Nancy L Kuntz; Jean K Mah; Leslie Morrison; Basil T Darras; Maja von der Hagen; Ulrike Schara; Ekkehard Wilichowski; Tiziana Mongini; Craig M McDonald; Giuseppe Vita; Richard J Barohn; Richard S Finkel; Matthew Wicklund; Hugh J McMillan; Imelda Hughes; Elena Pegoraro; W Bryan Burnette; James F Howard; Mathula Thangarajh; Craig Campbell; Robert C Griggs; Kate Bushby; Michela Guglieri Journal: Trials Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Toby Pillinger; Emanuele F Osimo; Stefan Brugger; Valeria Mondelli; Robert A McCutcheon; Oliver D Howes Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Veronika W Skrivankova; Rebecca C Richmond; Benjamin A R Woolf; Neil M Davies; Sonja A Swanson; Tyler J VanderWeele; Nicholas J Timpson; Julian P T Higgins; Niki Dimou; Claudia Langenberg; Elizabeth W Loder; Robert M Golub; Matthias Egger; George Davey Smith; J Brent Richards Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-10-26
Authors: Maria S Neumeier; Stephanie Homan; Stefan Vetter; Erich Seifritz; John M Kane; Maximilian Huhn; Stefan Leucht; Philipp Homan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 7.348