Emergent approaches to the meta-analysis of multiple heterogeneous complex interventions Data collection, quality, and reporting

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Melendez Torres, G J ^a   Bonell, Chris ^b   Thomas, James ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complex interventions; Meta analysis; Multiple interventions meta analysis; Network meta analysis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

BIOMETRY; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BIOMETRY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84930663047     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0040-z     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:80-97. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1037.
2. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:2313-24. doi: 10.1002/sim.1201.
3. Mills EJ, Bansback N, Ghement I, Thorlund K, Kelly S, Puhan MA, et al. Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity. Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:193-202. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S16526.
4. Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1209-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.004.
5. Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Noyes J, Higgins JPT, Mayhew A, Pantoja T, et al. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1230-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.005.
6. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
7. Weiss C. Connell J., 1995
8. Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2012;44:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.032.
9. Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:279-301. doi: 10.1177/0962280207080643.
10. Salanti G, Ades A, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016.
11. Achana F, Hubbard S, Sutton A, Kendrick D, Cooper N. An exploration of synthesis methods in public health evaluations of interventions concludes that the use of modern statistical methods would be beneficial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:376-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.018.
12. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1996;15:2733-49. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961230)15:24<2733::AID-SIM562>3.0.CO;2-0.
13. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23:3105-24. doi: 10.1002/sim.1875.
14. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2: a Generalized Linear Modeling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:607-17. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12458724.
15. Tharyan P. Introducing conceptual and analytical clarity on dimensions of complexity in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1202-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.004.
16. Pigott T, Shepperd S. Identifying, documenting, and examining heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1244-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.013.
17. Grant E, Calderbank-Batista T. Network Meta-Analysis for Complex Social Interventions: Problems and Potential. J Soc Social Work Res. 2013;4:406-20. doi: 10.5243/jsswr.2013.25.
18. Webster-Stratton C, Reid MJ, Stoolmiller M. Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: evaluation of the Incredible Years Teacher and Child Training Programs in high-risk schools. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49:471-88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5243/jsswr.2013.25.
19. Prinz RJ, Sanders MR. Adopting a population-level approach to parenting and family support interventions. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27:739-49. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.01.005.
20. Barth J, Munder T, Gerger H, Nuesch E, Trelle S, Znoj H, et al. Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454.
21. Mayo-Wilson E, Dias S, Mavranezouli I, Kew K, Clark DM, Ades AE, et al. Psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:368-76. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70329-3.
22. Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26:17-31. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.003.
23. Beck A. The Current State of Cognitive Therapy: a 40-Year Retrospective. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:953-9.
24. Kriston L, von Wolff A, Westphal A, Holzel LP, Harter M. Efficacy and acceptability of acute treatments for persistent depressive disorder: a network meta-analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2014;31:621-30. doi: 10.1002/da.22236.
25. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29:932-44. doi: 10.1002/sim.3767.
26. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101:447-59. doi: 10.1198/016214505000001302.
27. Chorpita BF, Daleiden EL, Weisz JR. Identifying and Selecting the Common Elements of Evidence Based Interventions: A Distillation and Matching Model. Ment Health Serv Res. 2005;7:5-20. doi: 10.1007/s11020-005-1962-6.
28. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how 'out of control' can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ. 2004;328:1561-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561.
29. Cooper NJ, Kendrick D, Achana F, Dhiman P, He Z, Wynn P, et al. Network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of smoke alarms. Epidemiol Rev. 2012;34:32-45. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxr015.
30. Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Adamopoulos E, Vedhara K. Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169:1158-65. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp014.
31. Madan J, Chen Y-F, Aveyard P, Wang D, Yahaya I, Munafo M, et al. Synthesis of evidence on heterogeneous interventions with multiple outcomes recorded over multiple follow-up times reported inconsistently: a smoking cessation case-study. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics Soc). 2014;177:295-314. doi: 10.1111/rssa.12018.
32. Collins LM, Murphy SA, Strecher V. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) and the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART). New Methods for More Potent eHealth Interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32:112-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.022.
33. Naci H, Dias S, Ades AE. Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins. BMJ. 2014;349:g5741. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5741.
34. Soares MO, Welton NJ, Harrison DA, Peura P, Shankar-Hari M, Harvey SE, et al. An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): incorporating a systematic review, meta-analysis and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1-186. doi: 10.3310/hta16070.
35. Freeman KA, Riley A, Duke DC, Fu R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral interventions for fecal incontinence with constipation. J Pediatr Psychol. 2014;39:887-902. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsu039.
36. Michie S, Ashford S, Sniehotta FF, Dombrowski SU, Bishop A, French DP, et al. A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: the CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychol Health. 2011;26:1479-98. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.540664.
37. Chorpita BF, Becker KD, Daleiden EL. Understanding the common elements of evidence-based practice: misconceptions and clinical examples. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46:647-52. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e318033ff71.