Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research.

Q1 Medicine BMJ Open Science Pub Date : 2021-02-25 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjos-2020-100074
Ezgi Tanriver-Ayder, Christel Faes, Tom van de Casteele, Sarah K McCann, Malcolm R Macleod
{"title":"Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research.","authors":"Ezgi Tanriver-Ayder, Christel Faes, Tom van de Casteele, Sarah K McCann, Malcolm R Macleod","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2020-100074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Meta-analysis of preclinical data is used to evaluate the consistency of findings and to inform the design and conduct of future studies. Unlike clinical meta-analysis, preclinical data often involve many heterogeneous studies reporting outcomes from a small number of animals. Here, we review the methodological challenges in preclinical meta-analysis in estimating and explaining heterogeneity in treatment effects. Methods Assuming aggregate-level data, we focus on two topics: (1) estimation of heterogeneity using commonly used methods in preclinical meta-analysis: method of moments (DerSimonian and Laird; DL), maximum likelihood (restricted maximum likelihood; REML) and Bayesian approach; (2) comparison of univariate versus multivariable meta-regression for adjusting estimated treatment effects for heterogeneity. Using data from a systematic review on the efficacy of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in animals with stroke, we compare these methods, and explore the impact of multiple covariates on the treatment effects. Results We observed that the three methods for estimating heterogeneity yielded similar estimates for the overall effect, but different estimates for between-study variability. The proportion of heterogeneity explained by a covariate is estimated larger using REML and the Bayesian method as compared with DL. Multivariable meta-regression explains more heterogeneity than univariate meta-regression. Conclusions Our findings highlight the importance of careful selection of the estimation method and the use of multivariable meta-regression to explain heterogeneity. There was no difference between REML and the Bayesian method and both methods are recommended over DL. Multiple meta-regression is worthwhile to explain heterogeneity by more than one variable, reducing more variability than any univariate models and increasing the explained proportion of heterogeneity.","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100074","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background Meta-analysis of preclinical data is used to evaluate the consistency of findings and to inform the design and conduct of future studies. Unlike clinical meta-analysis, preclinical data often involve many heterogeneous studies reporting outcomes from a small number of animals. Here, we review the methodological challenges in preclinical meta-analysis in estimating and explaining heterogeneity in treatment effects. Methods Assuming aggregate-level data, we focus on two topics: (1) estimation of heterogeneity using commonly used methods in preclinical meta-analysis: method of moments (DerSimonian and Laird; DL), maximum likelihood (restricted maximum likelihood; REML) and Bayesian approach; (2) comparison of univariate versus multivariable meta-regression for adjusting estimated treatment effects for heterogeneity. Using data from a systematic review on the efficacy of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in animals with stroke, we compare these methods, and explore the impact of multiple covariates on the treatment effects. Results We observed that the three methods for estimating heterogeneity yielded similar estimates for the overall effect, but different estimates for between-study variability. The proportion of heterogeneity explained by a covariate is estimated larger using REML and the Bayesian method as compared with DL. Multivariable meta-regression explains more heterogeneity than univariate meta-regression. Conclusions Our findings highlight the importance of careful selection of the estimation method and the use of multivariable meta-regression to explain heterogeneity. There was no difference between REML and the Bayesian method and both methods are recommended over DL. Multiple meta-regression is worthwhile to explain heterogeneity by more than one variable, reducing more variability than any univariate models and increasing the explained proportion of heterogeneity.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
随机效应荟萃分析常用方法的比较:在药物发现研究临床前数据中的应用。
背景:临床前数据的荟萃分析用于评估研究结果的一致性,并为未来研究的设计和实施提供信息。与临床荟萃分析不同,临床前数据通常涉及许多异质性研究,报告了来自少数动物的结果。在这里,我们回顾了临床前荟萃分析在估计和解释治疗效果异质性方面的方法学挑战。方法:假设汇总水平的数据,我们关注两个主题:(1)使用临床前荟萃分析中常用的方法估计异质性:矩量法(DerSimonian和Laird;DL),最大似然(受限最大似然;REML)和贝叶斯方法;(2)比较单变量与多变量元回归对异质性估计治疗效果的调整。利用一项关于白细胞介素-1受体拮抗剂对中风动物疗效的系统综述数据,我们比较了这些方法,并探讨了多个协变量对治疗效果的影响。结果:我们观察到,三种估计异质性的方法对总体效果的估计相似,但对研究间变异性的估计不同。与DL相比,使用REML和贝叶斯方法估计由协变量解释的异质性比例更大。多元元回归比单变量元回归更能解释异质性。结论:我们的研究结果强调了谨慎选择估计方法和使用多变量元回归来解释异质性的重要性。REML和贝叶斯方法之间没有差异,两种方法都比DL推荐。多元元回归可以用多个变量解释异质性,比任何单变量模型减少更多的可变性,并增加异质性的解释比例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Science
BMJ Open Science Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction: Preclinical safety study of nacre powder in an intraosseous sheep model. Protocol for a systematic review of the validity of animal models of polydipsia with a basis in schizophrenia aetiology. Preclinical safety study of nacre powder in an intraosseous sheep model. Protocol for a systematic review of good surgical practice guidelines for experimental rodent surgery. Genome-wide DNA methylation in an animal model and human studies of schizophrenia: a protocol for a meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1