Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data

被引:71
作者
Jansen, Jeroen P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Tufts Univ, Sch Med, MAPI Consultancy, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1048
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Network meta-analysis is often performed with aggregate-level data (AgD). A challenge in using AgD is that the association between a patient-level covariate and treatment effects at the study level may not reflect the individual-level effect modification. In this paper, non-linear network meta-analysis models for combining individual patient data (IPD) and AgD are presented to reduce bias and uncertainty of direct and indirect treatment effects in the presence of heterogeneity. The first method uses the same model form for IPD and AgD. With the second method, the model for AgD is obtained by integrating an underlying IPD model over the joint within-study distribution of covariates, in line with the method by Jackson et al. for ecological inferences. With simulated examples, the models are illustrated. Having IPD for a subset of studies improves estimation of treatment effects in the presence of patient-level heterogeneity. Of the two proposed nonlinear models for combining IPD and AgD, the second seems less affected by bias in situations with large treatment-by-patient-level-covariate interactions, probably at the cost of greater uncertainty. Additional studies are needed to better understand when one model is favorable over the other. For network meta-analysis, it is recommended to use IPD when available. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:177 / 190
页数:14
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models [J].
Ades, AE ;
Lu, G ;
Higgins, JPT .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2005, 25 (06) :646-654
[2]   A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter synthesis and consistency of evidence [J].
Ades, AE .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2003, 22 (19) :2995-3016
[3]   Separation of individual-level and cluster-level covariate effects in regression analysis of correlated data [J].
Begg, MD ;
Parides, MK .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2003, 22 (16) :2591-2602
[4]   The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Bucher, HC ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Griffith, LE ;
Walter, SD .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :683-691
[5]   Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence [J].
Caldwell, DM ;
Ades, AE ;
Higgins, JPT .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7521) :897-900
[6]   Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation [J].
Cooper, Nicola J. ;
Sutton, Alex J. ;
Morris, Danielle ;
Ades, A. E. ;
Welton, Nicky J. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (14) :1861-1881
[7]   Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis [J].
Dias, S. ;
Welton, N. J. ;
Marinho, V. C. C. ;
Salanti, G. ;
Higgins, J. P. T. ;
Ades, A. E. .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 2010, 173 :613-629
[8]   A review of multilevel theory for ecologic analyses [J].
Greenland, S .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (03) :389-395
[9]   Conducting Indirect-Treatment-Comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 2 [J].
Hoaglin, David C. ;
Hawkins, Neil ;
Jansen, Jeroen P. ;
Scott, David A. ;
Itzler, Robbin ;
Cappelleri, Joseph C. ;
Boersma, Cornelis ;
Thompson, David ;
Larholt, Kay M. ;
Diaz, Mireya ;
Barrett, Annabel .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :429-437
[10]   Improving ecological inference using individual-level data [J].
Jackson, C ;
Best, N ;
Richardson, S .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2006, 25 (12) :2136-2159