Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: Individual patient-level covariates versus aggregate trial-level covariates

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 29, 2012, Pages 3840-3857

  Donegan, Sarah ^a   Williamson, Paula ^a   D'Alessandro, Umberto ^b   Smith, Catrin Tudur ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL MEDICINE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Consistency; Individual patient data; Mixed treatment comparison; Multiple treatments meta analysis; Network meta analysis; Similarity

Indexed keywords

AMODIAQUINE PLUS ARTESUNATE; ARTEMETHER PLUS BENFLUMETOL; ARTESUNATE PLUS CHLORPROGUANIL PLUS DAPSONE; DIHYDROARTEMISININ PLUS PIPERAQUINE;

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG COMPARISON; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MALARIA; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISON META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT INFORMATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AMODIAQUINE; ANTIMALARIALS; ARTEMISININS; DAPSONE; DRUG COMBINATIONS; ETHANOLAMINES; FLUORENES; HUMANS; MALARIA; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGUANIL; QUINOLINES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 84870064743     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5470     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bucher H, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Walter S. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997; 50(6):683-691, DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00049-8.
2. Glenny A, Altman D, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks J, D'Amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood A. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technology Assessment 2005; 9(26).
3. Lu G, Ades A. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2006; 101(474):447-459. DOI: 10.1198/016214505000001302.
4. Lu G, Ades A. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23(20):3105-3124. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1875.
5. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21(16):2313-2324. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1201.
6. Salanti G, Higgins J, Ades A, Ioannidis J. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2008; 17(3):279-301. DOI: 10.1177/0962280207080643.
7. Higgins J, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15(24):2733-2749. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961230)15:24<2733::AID-SIM562>3.0.CO;2-0.
8. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JPT.A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62(8):857-864. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.001.
9. Song F, Glenny AM, Altman DG. Indirect comparison in evaluating relative efficacy illustrated by antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000; 21(5):488-497. DOI: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00055-6.
10. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny A-M, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 2003; 326(7387):472. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7387.472.
11. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(7-8):932-944. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3767.
12. Cooper N, Sutton A, Morris D, Ades A, Welton N. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(14):1861-1881. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3594.
13. Tudur Smith C, Marson A, Chadwick D, Williamson P. Multiple treatment comparisons in epilepsy monotherapy trials. Trials 2007; 8:34. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-34.
14. Nixon RM, Bansback N, Brennan A. Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(6):1237-1254. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2624.
15. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, England, 2008.
16. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR.A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002; 55(1):86-94. DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00414-0.
17. Simmonds MC, Higgins JPT. Covariate heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Criteria for deciding between meta-regression and individual patient data. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(15):2982-2999. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2768.
18. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21(3):371-387. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1023.
19. Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR, Marson AG. An overview of methods and empirical comparison of aggregate data and individual patient data results for investigating heterogeneity in meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2005; 11(5):468-478. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00559.x.
20. Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2004; 57(7):683-697. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.001.
21. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials, 2011. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk. Accessed: 9 June 2011.
22. Salanti G, Kavvoura F, Ioannidis J. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Annals of Internal Medicine 2008; 148(7):544-553.
23. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, Wang J, Gueyffier F, Thijs L, Boutitie F. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(11):1870-1893. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3165.
24. Riley RD, Steyerberg EW. Meta-analysis of a binary outcome using individual participant data and aggregate data. Research Synthesis Methods 2010; 1(1):2-19. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.4.
25. Lu G, Ades A. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics 2009; 10(4):792-805. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxp032.
26. Dias S, Welton NJ, Marinho VCC, Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE. 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) 2010; 173(3):613-629. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00639.x.
27. Woods B, Hawkins N, Scott D. Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: A tutorial. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2010; 10: 54. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-54.
28. Govan L, Ades AE, Weir CJ, Welton NJ, Langhorne P. Controlling ecological bias in evidence synthesis of trials reporting on collapsed and overlapping covariate categories. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(12):1340-1356. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3869.
29. Ades AE, Mavranezouli I, Dias S, Welton NJ, Whittington C, Kendall T. Network meta-analysis with competing risk outcomes. Value in Health 2010; 13(8):976-983. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00784.x.
30. Whitehead A. Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. Wiley: Chichester, 2002.
31. Jansen J. Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011; 11(1):61. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-61.
32. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Guobing L, Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4: Inconsistency in Networks of Evidence Based on Randomised Controlled Trials, 2011. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk. Accessed: 9 June 2011.
33. The Four Artemisinin-Based Combinations Study Group. A head-to-head comparison of four artemisinin-based combinations for treating uncomplicated malaria in african children: a randomized trial. PLoS Medicine 2011; 8(11):e1001119. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001119.
34. Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC: London, UK, 1996.
35. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 2002; 64(4):583-639. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9868.00353.
36. Marshall E, Spiegelhalter D. Identifying outliers in Bayesian hierarchical models: a simulation-based approach. Bayesian Analysis 2007; 2(2):409-444. DOI: 10.1214/07-BA218.
37. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A, Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of continuous outcome data from individual patients. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20(15):2219-2241. DOI: 10.1002/sim.918.
38. Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Meta-analyses using individual patient data. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 1997; 3(3):207-212. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00005.x.
39. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. British Medical Journal 2010; 340:c221. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c221.