From concepts, theory, and evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects to methodological approaches: A primer

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 12, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Willke, Richard J ^a   Zheng, Zhiyuan ^b   Subedi, Prasun ^a   Althin, Rikard ^a   Mullins, C Daniel ^b  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF PHARMACY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Estimation techniques; Heterogeneity; Risk adjustment

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; THEORETICAL MODEL;

HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84870944183     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-185     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Kravitz RL, Duan N, Breslow J, Milbank Q 2004 82 661 687 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00327.x 15595946 (Pubitemid 40143102)
2. Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for guidelines, payment, and quality assessment. Greenfield S, Kravitz R, Duan N, Kaplan S, Am J Med 2007 120 4A 3 S9 17720359
3. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, et al. Trials 2009 10 43 10.1186/1745-6215-10-43 19545379
4. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE, Lancet 2000 355 1064 1069 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02039-0 10744093 (Pubitemid 30162810)
5. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE, Stat Med 2002 21 2917 2930 10.1002/sim.1296 12325108
6. Subgroup analysis in clinical trials. Cook DI, Gebski VJ, Keech AC, Med J Aust 2004 180 289 91 15012568 (Pubitemid 38372234)
7. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Rothwell PM, Lancet 2005 365 176 186 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17709-5 15639301 (Pubitemid 40091809)
8. Issues related to subgroup analysis in clinical trials. Cui L, Hung HM, Wang SJ, Tsong Y, J Biopharm Stat 2002 12 347 358 10.1081/BIP-120014565 12448576 (Pubitemid 35332820)
9. Moderators of treatment outcomes: clinical, research, and policy importance. Kraemer HC, Frank E, Kupfer DJ, JAMA 2006 296 10 1286 1289 10.1001/jama.296.10.1286 16968853 (Pubitemid 44394901)
10. Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. Brookes ST, Whitely E, Egger M, et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2004 57 3 229 236 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08. 009 15066682 (Pubitemid 38456874)
11. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, et al. Trials 2010 11 85 10.1186/1745-6215-11-85 20704705
12. Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at-but don't believe them! Debate SP, Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2000 1 25 27 10.1186/CVM-1-1-025 11714402 (Pubitemid 32219871)
13. Statistics in medicine-reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, et al. N Engl J Med 2007 357 21 2189 2194 10.1056/NEJMsr077003 18032770 (Pubitemid 350146117)
14. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Cochran WG, Biometrics 1954 10 101 129 10.2307/3001666
15. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Stat Med 2002 21 1539 1558 10.1002/sim.1186 12111919 (Pubitemid 34746062)
16. The funnel plot. Sterne JA, Becker C, B J, Egger M, Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustment Chichester: Wiley, Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, 2005 75 98
17. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Duval S, Tweedie R, Biometrics 2000 56 455 463 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x 10877304 (Pubitemid 30422636)
18. A non-parametric «Trim and Fill» method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Duval S, Tweedie RL, J Am Statist Ass 2000 95 89 98
19. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C, Br Med J 1997 315 629 634 10.1136/bmj.315.7109. 629 (Pubitemid 27387172)
20. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Begg CB, Mazumdar M, Biometrics 1994 50 1088 1101 10.2307/2533446 7786990
21. Assessing publication bias in meta-analyses in the presence of between-study heterogeneity. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L, Moreno SG, J R Statist Soc A 2010 173 575 591 Part 3 10.1111/j.1467-985X. 2009.00629.x
22. An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Schmid CH, Lau J, McIntosh MW, Cappelleri JC, Stat Med 1998 17 1923 1942 10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0258(19980915)17:17<1923::AID-SIM874>3.0.CO;2-6 9777687 (Pubitemid 28425258)
23. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. DerSimonian R, Laird N, Control Clin Trials 1986 7 177 188 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 3802833 (Pubitemid 17189972)
24. Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression. Baker WL, White CM, Cappelleri JC, et al. Int J Clin Pract 2009 63 1426 1434 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02168.x 19769699
25. A comprehensive review of predictive and prognostic composite factors implicated in the heterogeneity of treatment response and outcome across disease areas. Alatorre CI, Carter GC, Chen C, et al. Int J Clinn Pract 2011 65 831 847 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02703.x
26. Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: new results from the Framingham study. D'Agostino RB, Russell MW, Huse DM, et al. Am Heart J 2000 139 2 Pt 1 272 281 10650300 (Pubitemid 30090804)
27. Cytochrome p-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD, N Engl J Med 2009 360 354 362 10.1056/NEJMoa0809171 19106084
28. Continuum regression: cross-validated sequentially constructed prediction, embracing ordinary least squares, partial least squares and principal components regression (with discussion). Stone M, Brooks JR, J R Statist Soc B 1990 52 237 269
29. Breiman L, Random forests University of California-Berkeley: Working paper 1999
30. Vapnik V, The nature of statistical learning theory Berlin: Springer-Verlag 1995
31. Support vector machines for classification. Fradkin D, Muchnik I, Discrete methods in epidemiology", DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science, volume 70 New Brunswick: Department of Computer Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Abello J, Carmode G, 2006 13 20 23220784
32. Bishop CM, Neural networks for pattern recognition Oxford: Oxford University Press 1995
33. Heterogeneity of the baseline risk within patient populations of clinical trials: a proposed evaluation algorithm. Ioannidis JP, Lau J, Am J Epidemiol 1998 148 1117 1126 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009590 9850135 (Pubitemid 28562172)
34. Evaluation of treatment-effect heterogeneity using biomarkers measured on a continuous scale: subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot. Lazar AA, Cole BF, Bonetti M, Gelber RD, J Clin Oncol 2010 28 4539 44 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.9182 20837942
35. There's a reason they call them dummy variables: a note on the use of structural equation techniques in comparative effectiveness research. Crown WH, Pharmaco Economics 2010 28 947 955 10.2165/11537750-000000000-00000
36. Classification methods for confronting heterogeneity. Province MA, Shannon WD, Rao DC, Adv Genet 2001 4 2 273 286
37. Green, Donald P, Kern HL, Generalizing experimental results. The annual meeting of the American political science association DC: Washington 2010
38. Green, Donald P, Holder LK, Detecting heterogenous treatment effects in large-scale experiments using Bayesian additive regression trees. The annual summer meeting of the society of political methodology University of Iowa 2010
39. An introduction to latent growth curve modeling. Duncan TE, Duncan SC, Behav Ther 2004 35 333 363 10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80042-X (Pubitemid 38821737)
40. Analyzing growth and change: latent variable growth curve modeling with an application to clinical trials. Stull DE, Qual Life Res 2008 17 47 59 10.1007/s11136-007-9290-5 18080215
41. The conceptualization and analysis of change over time: an integrative approach incorporating longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Chan D, Organ Res Methods 1998 1 421 483 10.1177/109442819814004 (Pubitemid 128543459)
42. Have multilevel models been structural equation models all along? Curran P, Multivar Behav Res 2003 38 529 569 10.1207/s15327906mbr3804-5 (Pubitemid 38178182)
43. Growth mixture modeling: identifying and predicting unobserved subpopulations with longitudinal data. Wang M, Bodner TE, Organ Res Methods 2007 10 635 656 10.1177/1094428106289397
44. Application of latent growth and growth mixture modeling to identify and characterize differential responders to treatment for COPD. Stull DE, Wiklund I, Gale R, et al. Contemp Clin Trials 2011 32 6 818 828 10.1016/j.cct.2011.06.004 21762787
45. Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Lubke GH, Muthén B, Psychol Methods 2005 10 1 21 39 15810867 (Pubitemid 40551477)
46. An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Jung T, Wickrama KA, Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2008 2 302 317 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x
47. A clinician's guide for conducting randomized trials in individual patients. Guyatt G, Sackett D, Adachi J, et al. CMAJ 1988 139 497 503 3409138
48. The n-of-1 randomized controlled trial: clinical usefulness. Our three-year experience. Guyatt GH, Keller JL, Jaeschke R, et al. Ann Intern Med 1990 112 293 299 2297206 (Pubitemid 20055354)
49. Controlled trials in single subjects. 2. Limitations of use. Lewis JA, BMJ 1991 303 175 176 10.1136/bmj.303.6795.175 1878647
50. Combining single patient (N-of-1) trials to estimate population treatment effects and to evaluate individual patient responses to treatment. Zucker DR, Schmid CH, McIntosh MW, et al. J Clin Epidemiol 1997 50 401 410 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00429-5 9179098 (Pubitemid 27223269)
51. Economic evaluation alongside N-of-1 trials: getting closer to the margin. Karnon J, Qizlibash N, Health Econ 2001 10 79 82 10.1002/1099- 1050(200101)10:1<79::AID-HEC567>3.0.CO;2-Z 11180571
52. Are N-of-1 trials an economically viable option to improve access to selected high cost medications? The Australian experience. Scuffham PA, Dip BA, Yelland MB, et al. Value Health 2008 11 97 109 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00218.x 18237364 (Pubitemid 351160880)
53. Heterogeneous impacts in PROGRESA. Djebbari H, Smith JA, J Econ 2008 145 64 80
54. What did medicare do? the initial impact of medicare on mortality and out of pocket medical spending. Finkelstein A, McKnight R, J Public Econ 2008 92 1644 1668 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.10.005
55. Mercury advisories: information, education, and fish consumption. Shimshack JP, Ward MB, Beatty TKM, J Environ Econ Manag 2007 53 158 179 10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.002 (Pubitemid 46330502)
56. What mean impacts miss: distributional effects of welfare reform experiments. Bitler MP, Gelbach JB, Hoynes HW, Am Econ Rev 2006 96 988 1012 10.1257/aer.96.4.988
57. Accelerated failure time models provide a useful statistical framework for aging research. Swindell WR, Exp Gerontol 2009 44 3 190 200 10.1016/j.exger.2008.10.005 19007875
58. Nonparametric regression to the mean. Müller H-G, Abramson I, Azari R, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003 100 17 9715 9720 10.1073/pnas.1733547100 12902544 (Pubitemid 37087007)
59. Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, Mitnik OA, Nonparametric tests for treatment effect heterogeneity. National bureau of economic research technical working paper 324 Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/t0324 [Accessed February 12, 2012]
60. Non-parametric tests for distributional treatment effect for randomly censored responses. Lee M, J R Statist Soc B 2009 71 243 264 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2008.00683.x
61. Non-parametric regression for binary dependent variables. Frölich M, Econ J 2006 9 511 540 (Pubitemid 44651007)