A comparison of analytic approaches for individual patient data meta-analyses with binary outcomes

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 1-12

  Thomas, Doneal ^a   Platt, Robert ^a   Benedetti, Andrea ^a,b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adaptive gauss hermite quadrature; Fixed and random study effects; Generalized linear mixed models; Individual patient data meta analyses; One and two stage models; Penalized quasi likelihood

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LINEAR MODELS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS;

EID: 85012876837     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0307-7     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Riley RD, Simmonds MC, Look MP. Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(5):431-9. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.009. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
2. Stewart LA, Parmar MK. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet. 1993;341(8842):418-22.
3. Debray T, Moons K, Valkenhoef G, et al. Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(4):293-309.
4. Debray TPA, Moons KGM, Abo-Zaid GMA, et al. Individual participant data meta-analysis for a binary outcome: One-stage or Two-stage? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e60650. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060650. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
5. Stewart GB, Altman DG, Askie LM, et al. Statistical analysis of individual participant data meta-analyses: a comparison of methods and recommendations for practice. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e46042. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046042. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
6. Callens M, Croux C. Performance of likelihood-based estimation methods for multilevel binary regression models. J Stat Comput Simul. 2005;75(12):1003-17. doi:10.1080/00949650412331321070. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
7. Capanu M, Gönen M, Begg CB. An assessment of estimation methods for generalized linear mixed models with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2013;32(26):4550-66. doi:10.1002/sim.5866. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
8. Rondeau V, Michiels S, Liquet B, et al. Investigating trial and treatment heterogeneity in an individual patient data meta-analysis of survival data by means of the penalized maximum likelihood approach. Stat Med. 2008;27(11):1894-910. doi:10.1002/sim.3161. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
9. Simmonds MC, Higgins JP, Stewart LA, et al. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clinical trials (London, England). 2005;2(3):209-17.
10. Thomas D, Radji S, Benedetti A. Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta-analysis with binary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:79.
11. Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88(421):9-25. doi:10.2307/2290687. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
12. Breslow NE, Lin X. Bias correction in generalised linear mixed models with a single component of dispersion. Biometrika. 1995;82(1):81-91. doi:10.2307/2337629. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
13. Jang W, Lim J. A numerical study of PQL estimation biases in generalized linear mixed models under heterogeneity of random effects. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2009;38(4):692-702. doi:10.1080/03610910802627055. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
14. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Approximations to the Log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. J Comput Graph Stat. 1995;4(1):12-35. doi:10.2307/1390625. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
15. Turner RM, Omar RZ, Yang M, et al. A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2000;19(24):3417-32.
16. Benedetti A, Platt R, Atherton J. Generalized linear mixed models for binary data: Are matching results from penalized quasi-likelihood and numerical integration less biased? PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e84601. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084601. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
17. Moineddin R, Matheson FI, Glazier RH. A simulation study of sample size for multilevel logistic regression models. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:34. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-34. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2003;327(7414):557-60. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
19. van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21(4):589-624. doi:10.1002/sim.1040. [published Online First: Epub Date].
20. Riley RD. Multivariate meta-analysis: the effect of ignoring within-study correlation. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc. 2009;172(4):789-811. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00593.x. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
21. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-88.
22. Chen H, Manning AK, Dupuis J. A method of moments estimator for random effect multivariate meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2012;68(4):1278-84. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01761.x. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
23. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. A Likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. Stat Med. 1996;15(6):619-29. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960330)15:6<619::AID-SIM188>3.0.CO;2-A. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
24. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger DR. SAS system for mixed models. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.; 1996.
25. Proc Glimmix. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Based on Adaptive Quadrature, SAS Institute Inc., SAS 9.4 Help and Documentation. Cary: SAS Institute Inc; 2002-2004.
26. Abo-Zaid G, Guo B, Deeks JJ, et al. Individual participant data meta-analyses should not ignore clustering. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8):865-73.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.017. [published Online First: Epub Date].
27. Mathew T, Nordström K. Comparison of One-step and Two-step meta-analysis models using individual patient data. Biom J. 2010;52(2):271-87. doi:10.1002/bimj.200900143. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
28. Gelman A, Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
29. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105-24. doi:10.1002/sim.1875. [published Online First: Epub Date]|.
30. Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Localio R, Stack CB, Meibohm AR, Guallar E, et al. Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):267-70.
31. IntHout J, Iaonnidis JPA, Borm GF. The the hartung-knapp-sidik-jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:25.
32. Noh M, Lee Y. REML estimation for binary data in GLMMs. J Multivar Anal. 2007;98(5):896-915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2006.11.009. [published Online First: Epub Date].