Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society

Volumn 173, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 613-629

  Dias, S ^a   Welton, N J ^a   Marinho, V C C ^b   Salanti, G ^c   Higgins, J P T ^d   Ades, A E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^d MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian methods; Bias; Markov chain Monte Carlo methods; Meta analysis; Mixed treatment comparisons; Network meta analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954764836     PISSN: 09641998     EISSN: 1467985X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00639.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ades A E. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter evidence synthesis and consistency of evidence. Statist. Med. 2003, 22:2995-3016.
2. Brooks S P, Gelman A. Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J. Computnl Graph. Statist. 1998, 7:434-455.
3. Caldwell D M, Ades A E, Higgins J P T. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. Br. Med. J. 2005, 331:897-900.
4. Chalmers T C, Celano P, Sacks H S, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New Engl. J. Med. 1983, 309:1358-1361.
5. Cipriani A, Furukawa T A, Salanti G, Geddes J R, Higgins J P T, Churchill R, Watanabe N, Nakagawa A, Omori I M, McGuire H, Tansella M, Barbui C. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2009, 373:746-758.
6. Cooper N J, Sutton A J, Abrams K R, Wailoo A, Turner D, Nicholson K G. Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br. Med. J. 2003, 326:1235-1238.
7. Dias S, McNamee R, Vail A. Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility. Hum. Reprodn 2006, 21:2617-2627.
8. Dias S, Welton N J, Caldwell D M, Ades A E. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Statist. Med. 2010, 29. in the press
9. Eddy D M, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. Meta-analysis by the Confidence Profile Method 1992, London, Academic Press
10. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J A C. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews?: empirical study. 2003, 7. no. 1. (Available from .)
11. Falagas M, Grigori T, Ioannidou E. A systematic review of trends in the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in various research fields. J. Clin. Epidem. 2009, 62:227-231.e9.
12. Foley N, Zettler L, Salter K, Bhogal S, Teasell R, Speechley M. In a review of stroke rehabilitation studies, concealed allocation was under reported. J. Clin. Epidem. 2009, 62:766-770.
13. Gleser L J, Olkin I. Stochastically dependent effect sizes. The Handbook of Research Synthesis 1994, 339-355. Cooper H, Hedges L V. eds, New York, Russell Sage Foundation
14. Gleser L, Olkin I. Meta-analysis for 2×2 tables with multiple treatment groups. Meta-analysis in Medicine and Health Policy 2000, Stangl D K, Berry D A. eds, New York, Dekker
15. Gluud L L. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am. J. Epidem. 2006, 163:493-501.
16. Golfinopoulos V, Salanti G, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis J P A. Survival and disease-progression benefits with treatment regimens for advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007, 8:898-911.
17. Goubar A, Ades A E, De Angelis D, McGarrigle C A, Mercer C H, Tookey P A, Fenton K, Gill Othomampersand. Estimates of human immunodeficiency virus prevalence and proportion diagnosed based on Bayesian multiparameter synthesis of surveillance data (with discussion). J. R. Statist. Soc. A 2008, 171:541-580.
18. Greenland S. Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data (with discussion). J. R. Statist. Soc. A 2005, 168:267-306.
19. Greenland S, O'Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2001, 2:463-471.
20. Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson D J, Watson J, Bland J M. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. Br. Med. J. 2005, 330:1057-1058.
21. Higgins J P T, Altman D G. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 2008, Higgins J, Green S. eds, Chichester, Cochrane Collaboration
22. Higgins J P T, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 2008, Chichester, Cochrane Collaboration
23. Higgins J P T, Whitehead J. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Statist. Med. 1996, 15:2733-2749.
24. Ibrahim J, Chen M-H. Power prior distributions for regression models. Statist. Sci. 2000, 15:46-60.
25. Kjaergard L L, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann. Intern. Med. 2001, 135:982-989.
26. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman A D. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, issue 2, article MR000012, Oxford, Cochrane Collaboration
27. Lambert P C, Sutton A J, Burton P, Abrams K R, Jones D. How vague is vague?: assessment of the use of vague prior distributions for variance components. Statist. Med. 2005, 24:2401-2428.
28. Lu G, Ades A. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Statist. Med. 2004, 23:3105-3124.
29. Lu G, Ades A. Assessing evidence consistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J. Am. Statist. Ass. 2006, 101:447-459.
30. Lu G, Ades A. Modelling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics 2009, 10:792-805.
31. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statist. Med. 2002, 21:2313-2324.
32. Marinho V C C, Higgins J P T, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride gels for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002a, issue 1, Oxford, Cochrane Collaboration
33. Marinho V C C, Higgins J P T, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002b, issue 1, Oxford, Cochrane Collaboration
34. Marinho V C C, Higgins J P T, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003a, issue 3, Oxford, Cochrane Collaboration
35. Marinho V C C, Higgins J P T, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003b, issue 1, Oxford, Cochrane Collaboration
36. Marinho V C C, Higgins J P T, Logan S, Sheiham A. Topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels or varnishes) for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003c, issue 4, Oxford, Cochrane Collaboration
37. Marinho V C C, Higgins J P T, Sheiham A, Logan S. One topical fluoride (toothpastes, or mouthrinses, or gels, or varnishes) versus another for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, issue 1, Oxford, Cochrane Collaboration
38. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses. Lancet 2000, 356:1228-1231.
39. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook D J, Jadad A, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen T. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses. Lancet 1998, 352:609-613.
40. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2008, London, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
41. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Version 4.3 2008, Canberra, Australian Government
42. Presanis A M, De Angelis D, Spiegelhalter D J, Seaman S, Goubar A, Ades A E. Conflicting evidence in a Bayesian synthesis of surveillance data to estimate human immunodeficiency virus prevalence. J. R. Statist. Soc. A 2008, 171:915-937.
43. Salanti G, Ades A E, Higgins J P T, Ioannidis J P A. Evaluation of networks of randomised trials. Statist. Meth. Med. Res. 2008, 17:279-301.
44. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins J P T. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J. Clin. Epidem. 2009, 62:857-864.
45. Schulz K F, Chalmers I, Hayes R J, Altman D G. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J. Am. Med. Ass. 1995, 273:408-412.
46. Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J. Clin. Epidem. 2008, 61:455-463.
47. Spiegelhalter D J, Abrams K R, Myles J. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-care Evaluation 2004, New York, Wiley
48. Spiegelhalter D J, Best N G. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Statist. Med. 2003, 22:3687-3709.
49. Spiegelhalter D J, Best N G, Carlin B P, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Statist. Soc. B 2002, 64:583-616.
50. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. WinBUGS User Manual Version 1.4.3 2007, Cambridge, Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, (Available from .)
51. Sterne J, Juni P, Schulz K F, Altman D G, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Statist. Med. 2002, 21:1513-1524.
52. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, Kastrati A, Morice M C, Schomig A, Pfisterer M E, Stone G W, Leon M B, de Lezo J S, Goy J J, Park S J, Sabate M, Suttorp M J, Kelbaek H, Spaulding C, Menichelli M, Vermeersch P, Dirksen M T, Cervinka P, Petronio A S, Nordmann A J, Diem P, Meier B, Zwahlen M, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, Windecker S, Juni P. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007, 370:937-948.
53. Sweeting M J, De Angelis D, Hickman D, Ades A E. Estimating HCV prevalence in England and Wales by synthesising evidence from multiple data sources: assessing data conflict and model fit. Biostatistics 2008, 9:715-734.
54. Tiruvoipati R, Balasubramanian S, Atturu G, Peek G, Elbourne D. Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: the way forward. J. Thor. Cardvasc. Surg. 2006, 132:233-240.
55. Turner R M, Spiegelhalter D J, Smith G C S, Thompson S G. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J. R. Statist. Soc. A 2009, 172:21-47.
56. Welton N J, Ades A E. A model of toxoplasmosis incidence in the UK: evidence synthesis and consistency of evidence. Appl. Statist. 2005, 54:385-404.
57. Welton N J, Ades A E, Carlin J B, Altman D G, Sterne J A C. Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors. J. R. Statist. Soc. A 2009a, 172:119-136.
58. Welton N J, Caldwell D M, Adamopoulos E, Vedhara K. Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease. Am. J. Epidem. 2009b, 169:1158-1165.
59. Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials 2002, Chichester, Wiley
60. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud L, Schulz K, Juni P, Altman D, Gluud C, Martin R, Wood A, Sterne J. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. Br. Med. J. 2008, 336:601-605.