Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform network meta-analyses with random inconsistency effects.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jackson D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4973704 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform network meta-analyses with random inconsistency effects.
Jackson Dan D Law Martin M Barrett Jessica K JK Turner Rebecca R Higgins Julian P T JP Salanti Georgia G White Ian R IR
Statistics in medicine 20150930 6
Network meta-analysis is becoming more popular as a way to compare multiple treatments simultaneously. Here, we develop a new estimation method for fitting models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. This method is an extension of the procedure originally proposed by DerSimonian and Laird. Our methodology allows for inconsistency within the network. The proposed procedure is semi-parametric, non-iterative, fast and highly accessible to applied researchers. The methodology ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Network meta-analysis is used to simultaneously compare multiple treatments in a single analysis. However, network meta-analyses may exhibit inconsistency, where direct and different forms of indirect evidence are not in agreement with each other, even after allowing for between-study heterogeneity. Models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects have the dual aim of allowing for inconsistencies and estimating average treatment effects across the whole network. To date, two classical estimation methods for fitting this type of model have been developed: a method of moments that extends DerSimonian and Laird's univariate method and maximum likelihood estimation. However, the Paule and Mandel estimator is another recommended classical estimation method for univariate meta-analysis. In this paper, we extend the Paule and Mandel method so that it can be used to fit models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. We apply all three estimation methods to a variety of examples that have been used previously and we also examine a challenging new dataset that is highly heterogenous. We perform a simulation study based on this new example. We find that the proposed Paule and Mandel method performs satisfactorily and generally better than the previously proposed method of moments because it provides more accurate inferences. Furthermore, the Paule and Mandel method possesses some advantages over likelihood-based methods because it is both semiparametric and requires no convergence diagnostics. Although restricted maximum likelihood estimation remains the gold standard, the proposed methodology is a fully viable alternative to this and other estimation methods.
| S-EPMC5720360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Network meta-analysis is becoming more popular as a way to analyse multiple treatments simultaneously and, in the right circumstances, rank treatments. A difficulty in practice is the possibility of 'inconsistency' or 'incoherence', where direct evidence and indirect evidence are not in agreement. Here, we develop a random-effects implementation of the recently proposed design-by-treatment interaction model, using these random effects to model inconsistency and estimate the parameters of primary interest. Our proposal is a generalisation of the model proposed by Lumley and allows trials with three or more arms to be included in the analysis. Our methods also facilitate the ranking of treatments under inconsistency. We derive R and I(2) statistics to quantify the impact of the between-study heterogeneity and the inconsistency. We apply our model to two examples.
| S-EPMC4285290 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pairwise and network meta-analyses using fixed effect and random effects models are commonly applied to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials. The models differ in their assumptions and the interpretation of the results. The model choice depends on the objective of the analysis and knowledge of the included studies. Fixed effect models are often used because there are too few studies with which to estimate the between-study SD from the data alone. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to propose a framework for eliciting an informative prior distribution for the between-study SD in a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis model to genuinely represent heterogeneity when data are sparse. METHODS:We developed an elicitation method using external information, such as empirical evidence and expert beliefs, on the "range" of treatment effects to infer the prior distribution for the between-study SD. We also developed the method to be implemented in R. RESULTS:The 3-stage elicitation approach allows uncertainty to be represented by a genuine prior distribution to avoid making misleading inferences. It is flexible to what judgments an expert can provide and is applicable to all types of outcome measures for which a treatment effect can be constructed on an additive scale. CONCLUSIONS:The choice between using a fixed effect or random effects meta-analysis model depends on the inferences required and not on the number of available studies. Our elicitation framework captures external evidence about heterogeneity and overcomes the assumption that studies are estimating the same treatment effect, thereby improving the quality of inferences in decision making.
| S-EPMC5950028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a popular tool to synthesize direct and indirect evidence for simultaneously comparing multiple treatments, while evidence inconsistency greatly threatens its validity. One may use the inconsistency degrees of freedom (ICDF) to assess the potential that an NMA might suffer from inconsistency. Multi-arm studies provide intrinsically consistent evidence and complicate the ICDF's calculation; they commonly appear in NMAs. The existing ICDF measure may not feasibly handle multi-arm studies. Motivated from the effective numbers of parameters of Bayesian hierarchical models, we propose new ICDF measures in generic NMAs that may contain multi-arm studies. Under the fixed- or random-effects setting, the new ICDF measure is the difference between the effective numbers of parameters of the consistency and inconsistency NMA models. We used artificial NMAs created based on an illustrative example and 39 empirical NMAs to evaluate the performance of the existing and new measures. In NMAs with two-arm studies only, the proposed ICDF measure under the fixed-effects setting was nearly the same with the existing measure. Among the empirical NMAs, 27 (69%) contained at least one multi-arm study. The existing measure was not applicable to them, while the proposed measures led to interpretable ICDFs in all NMAs.
| S-EPMC8122016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe an exact, unconditional, non-randomized procedure for producing confidence intervals for the grand mean in a normal-normal random effects meta-analysis. The procedure targets meta-analyses based on too few primary studies, ≤7 , say, to allow for the conventional asymptotic estimators, e.g., DerSimonian and Laird (1986), or non-parametric resampling-based procedures, e.g., Liu et al. (2017). Meta-analyses with such few studies are common, with one recent sample of 22,453 heath-related meta-analyses finding a median of 3 primary studies per meta-analysis (Davey et al., 2011). Reliable and efficient inference procedures are therefore needed to address this setting. The coverage level of the resulting CI is guaranteed to be above the nominal level, up to Monte Carlo error, provided the meta-analysis contains more than 1 study and the model assumptions are met. After employing several techniques to accelerate computation, the new CI can be easily constructed on a personal computer. Simulations suggest that the proposed CI typically is not overly conservative. We illustrate the approach on several contrasting examples of meta-analyses investigating the effect of calcium intake on bone mineral density.
| S-EPMC7045874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecently, network meta-analysis of survival data with a multidimensional treatment effect was introduced. With these models the hazard ratio is not assumed to be constant over time, thereby reducing the possibility of violating transitivity in indirect comparisons. However, bias is still present if there are systematic differences in treatment effect modifiers across comparisons.MethodsIn this paper we present multidimensional network meta-analysis models for time-to-event data that are extended with covariates to explain heterogeneity and adjust for confounding bias in the synthesis of evidence networks of randomized controlled trials. The impact of a covariate on the treatment effect can be assumed to be treatment specific or constant for all treatments compared.ResultsAn illustrative example analysis is presented for a network of randomized controlled trials evaluating different interventions for advanced melanoma. Incorporating a covariate related to the study date resulted in different estimates for the hazard ratios over time than an analysis without this covariate, indicating the importance of adjusting for changes in contextual factors over time.ConclusionAdding treatment-by-covariate interactions to multidimensional network meta-analysis models for published survival curves can be worthwhile to explain systematic differences across comparisons, thereby reducing inconsistencies and bias. An additional advantage is that heterogeneity in treatment effects can be explored.
| S-EPMC3570315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a central tool for evidence synthesis in clinical research. The results of an NMA depend critically on the quality of evidence being pooled. In assessing the validity of an NMA, it is therefore important to know the proportion contributions of each direct treatment comparison to each network treatment effect. The construction of proportion contributions is based on the observation that each row of the hat matrix represents a so-called "evidence flow network" for each treatment comparison. However, the existing algorithm used to calculate these values is associated with ambiguity according to the selection of paths. In this article, we present a novel analogy between NMA and random walks. We use this analogy to derive closed-form expressions for the proportion contributions. A random walk on a graph is a stochastic process that describes a succession of random "hops" between vertices which are connected by an edge. The weight of an edge relates to the probability that the walker moves along that edge. We use the graph representation of NMA to construct the transition matrix for a random walk on the network of evidence. We show that the net number of times a walker crosses each edge of the network is related to the evidence flow network. By then defining a random walk on the directed evidence flow network, we derive analytically the matrix of proportion contributions. The random-walk approach has none of the associated ambiguity of the existing algorithm.
| S-EPMC9311228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether the exclusion of individual treatment comparators, including placebo/no treatment, affects the results of network meta-analysis.DesignSurvey of networks with individual trial data.Data sourcesPubMed and communication with authors of network meta-analyses.Study selection and methodsWe included networks that had five or more treatments, contained at least two closed loops, had at least twice as many studies as treatments, and had trial level data available. Investigators abstracted information about study design, participants, outcomes, network geometry, and the exclusion of eligible treatments.ResultsAmong 18 eligible networks involving 757 randomised controlled trials with 750 possible treatment comparisons, 11 had upfront decided not to consider all treatment comparators and only 10 included placebo/no treatment nodes. In 7/18 networks, there was at least one node whose removal caused a more than 1.10-fold average relative change in the estimated treatments effects, and switches in the top three treatments were observed in 9/18 networks. Removal of placebo/no treatment caused large relative changes of the treatment effects (average change 1.16-3.10-fold) for four of the 10 networks that had originally included placebo/no treatment nodes. Exclusion of current uncommonly used drugs resulted in substantial changes of the treatment effects (average 1.21-fold) in one of three networks on systemic treatments for advanced malignancies.ConclusionExcluding treatments in network meta-analyses sometimes can have important effects on their results and can diminish the usefulness of the research to clinicians if important comparisons are missing.
| S-EPMC3763846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Factor analysis models are widely used in health research to summarize hard to measure predictor or outcome variable constructs. For example, in the ELEMENT study, factor models are used to summarize lead exposure biomarkers which are thought to indirectly measure prenatal exposure to lead. Classic latent factor models are fitted assuming that factor loadings are constant across all covariate levels (e.g., maternal age in ELEMENT); that is, measurement invariance (MI) is assumed. When the MI is not met, measurement bias is introduced. Traditionally, MI is examined by defining subgroups of the data based on covariates, fitting multi-group factor analysis, and testing differences in factor loadings across covariate groups. In this paper, we develop novel tests of measurement invariance by modeling the factor loadings as varying coeffcients, i.e., letting the factor loading vary across continuous covariate values instead of groups. These varying coeffcients are estimated using penalized splines, where spline coeffcients are penalized by treating them as random coeffcients. The test of MI is then carried out by conducting a likelihood ratio test for the null hypothesis that the variance of the random spline coeffcients equals zero. We use a Monte-Carlo EM algorithm for estimation, and obtain the likelihood using Monte-Carlo in tegration. Using simulations, we compare the Type I error and power of our testing approach and the multi-group testing method. We apply the proposed methods to to summarize data on prenatal biomarkers of lead exposure from the ELEMENT study and find violations of MI due to maternal age.
| S-EPMC6385881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meta-analysis is widely used to compare and combine the results of multiple independent studies. To account for between-study heterogeneity, investigators often employ random-effects models, under which the effect sizes of interest are assumed to follow a normal distribution. It is common to estimate the mean effect size by a weighted linear combination of study-specific estimators, with the weight for each study being inversely proportional to the sum of the variance of the effect-size estimator and the estimated variance component of the random-effects distribution. Because the estimator of the variance component involved in the weights is random and correlated with study-specific effect-size estimators, the commonly adopted asymptotic normal approximation to the meta-analysis estimator is grossly inaccurate unless the number of studies is large. When individual participant data are available, one can also estimate the mean effect size by maximizing the joint likelihood. We establish the asymptotic properties of the meta-analysis estimator and the joint maximum likelihood estimator when the number of studies is either fixed or increases at a slower rate than the study sizes and we discover a surprising result: the former estimator is always at least as efficient as the latter. We also develop a novel resampling technique that improves the accuracy of statistical inference. We demonstrate the benefits of the proposed inference procedures using simulated and empirical data.
| S-EPMC4681410 | biostudies-literature