Literature DB >> 34587296

Accounting for post-randomization variables in meta-analysis: A joint meta-regression approach.

Qinshu Lian1, Jing Zhang2, James S Hodges1, Yong Chen3, Haitao Chu1.   

Abstract

Meta-regression is widely used in systematic reviews to investigate sources of heterogeneity and the association of study-level covariates with treatment effectiveness. Existing meta-regression approaches are successful in adjusting for baseline covariates, which include real study-level covariates (e.g., publication year) that are invariant within a study and aggregated baseline covariates (e.g., mean age) that differ for each participant but are measured before randomization within a study. However, these methods have several limitations in adjusting for post-randomization variables. Although post-randomization variables share a handful of similarities with baseline covariates, they differ in several aspects. First, baseline covariates can be aggregated at the study level presumably because they are assumed to be balanced by the randomization, while post-randomization variables are not balanced across arms within a study and are commonly aggregated at the arm level. Second, post-randomization variables may interact dynamically with the primary outcome. Third, unlike baseline covariates, post-randomization variables are themselves often important outcomes under investigation. In light of these differences, we propose a Bayesian joint meta-regression approach adjusting for post-randomization variables. The proposed method simultaneously estimates the treatment effect on the primary outcome and on the post-randomization variables. It takes into consideration both between- and within-study variability in post-randomization variables. Studies with missing data in either the primary outcome or the post-randomization variables are included in the joint model to improve estimation. Our method is evaluated by simulations and a real meta-analysis of major depression disorder treatments.
© 2021 The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian method; joint modeling; meta-regression; missing data; post-randomization variable

Year:  2021        PMID: 34587296      PMCID: PMC8960477          DOI: 10.1111/biom.13573

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  22 in total

1.  Analysing the relationship between treatment effect and underlying risk in meta-analysis: comparison and development of approaches.

Authors:  S J Sharp; S G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification.

Authors:  S Greenland; H Morgenstern
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 7.196

3.  Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head.

Authors:  Jesse A Berlin; Jill Santanna; Christopher H Schmid; Lynda A Szczech; Harold I Feldman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Meta-analysis of studies with missing data.

Authors:  Ying Yuan; Roderick J A Little
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-05-18       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Hans van Houwelingen and the art of summing up.

Authors:  Stephen Senn
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.207

6.  A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis.

Authors:  C S Berkey; D C Hoaglin; F Mosteller; G A Colditz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 7.  Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction.

Authors:  S G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons.

Authors:  Hwanhee Hong; Haitao Chu; Jing Zhang; Bradley P Carlin
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 5.273

9.  Absolute or relative effects? Arm-based synthesis of trial data.

Authors:  S Dias; A E Ades
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 5.273

10.  A comparison of arm-based and contrast-based models for network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ian R White; Rebecca M Turner; Amalia Karahalios; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.