Network meta-interpolation: Effect modification adjustment in network meta-analysis using subgroup analyses

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2022-10-25 DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1608
Ofir Harari, Mohsen Soltanifar, Joseph C. Cappelleri, Andre Verhoek, Mario Ouwens, Caitlin Daly, Bart Heeg
{"title":"Network meta-interpolation: Effect modification adjustment in network meta-analysis using subgroup analyses","authors":"Ofir Harari,&nbsp;Mohsen Soltanifar,&nbsp;Joseph C. Cappelleri,&nbsp;Andre Verhoek,&nbsp;Mario Ouwens,&nbsp;Caitlin Daly,&nbsp;Bart Heeg","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Effect modification (EM) may cause bias in network meta-analysis (NMA). Existing population adjustment NMA methods use individual patient data to adjust for EM but disregard available subgroup information from aggregated data in the evidence network. Additionally, these methods often rely on the shared effect modification (SEM) assumption. In this paper, we propose Network Meta-Interpolation (NMI): a method using subgroup analyses to adjust for EM that does not assume SEM. NMI balances effect modifiers across studies by turning treatment effect (TE) estimates at the subgroup- and study level into TE and standard errors at EM values common to all studies. In an extensive simulation study, we simulate two evidence networks consisting of four treatments, and assess the impact of departure from the SEM assumption, variable EM correlation across trials, trial sample size and network size. NMI was compared to standard NMA, network meta-regression (NMR) and Multilevel NMR (ML-NMR) in terms of estimation accuracy and credible interval (CrI) coverage. In the base case non-SEM dataset, NMI achieved the highest estimation accuracy with root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.228, followed by standard NMA (0.241), ML-NMR (0.447) and NMR (0.541). In the SEM dataset, NMI was again the most accurate method with RMSE of 0.222, followed by ML-NMR (0.255). CrI coverage followed a similar pattern. NMI's dominance in terms of estimation accuracy and CrI coverage appeared to be consistent across all scenarios. NMI represents an effective option for NMA in the presence of study imbalance and available subgroup data.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"14 2","pages":"211-233"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1608","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1608","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effect modification (EM) may cause bias in network meta-analysis (NMA). Existing population adjustment NMA methods use individual patient data to adjust for EM but disregard available subgroup information from aggregated data in the evidence network. Additionally, these methods often rely on the shared effect modification (SEM) assumption. In this paper, we propose Network Meta-Interpolation (NMI): a method using subgroup analyses to adjust for EM that does not assume SEM. NMI balances effect modifiers across studies by turning treatment effect (TE) estimates at the subgroup- and study level into TE and standard errors at EM values common to all studies. In an extensive simulation study, we simulate two evidence networks consisting of four treatments, and assess the impact of departure from the SEM assumption, variable EM correlation across trials, trial sample size and network size. NMI was compared to standard NMA, network meta-regression (NMR) and Multilevel NMR (ML-NMR) in terms of estimation accuracy and credible interval (CrI) coverage. In the base case non-SEM dataset, NMI achieved the highest estimation accuracy with root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.228, followed by standard NMA (0.241), ML-NMR (0.447) and NMR (0.541). In the SEM dataset, NMI was again the most accurate method with RMSE of 0.222, followed by ML-NMR (0.255). CrI coverage followed a similar pattern. NMI's dominance in terms of estimation accuracy and CrI coverage appeared to be consistent across all scenarios. NMI represents an effective option for NMA in the presence of study imbalance and available subgroup data.

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
网络元插值:运用亚群分析对网络元分析的效果修正调整
效应修正(EM)可能导致网络元分析(NMA)的偏倚。现有的人口调整NMA方法使用个体患者数据来调整EM,但忽略了证据网络中汇总数据中可用的亚组信息。此外,这些方法往往依赖于共享效应修正(SEM)假设。在本文中,我们提出了网络元插值(NMI):一种使用子群分析来调整EM的方法,不假设SEM。NMI通过将亚组和研究水平的治疗效果(TE)估计值转化为所有研究中常见的治疗效果和EM值的标准误差来平衡研究中的效应调节剂。在一项广泛的模拟研究中,我们模拟了由四种处理组成的两个证据网络,并评估了偏离SEM假设、试验之间的可变EM相关性、试验样本量和网络大小的影响。在估计精度和可信区间(CrI)覆盖率方面,将NMI与标准NMA、网络元回归(NMR)和多层核磁共振(ML-NMR)进行了比较。在基本情况非sem数据集中,NMI的估计精度最高,均方根误差(RMSE)为0.228,其次是标准NMA (0.241), ML-NMR(0.447)和NMR(0.541)。在SEM数据集中,NMI仍然是最准确的方法,RMSE为0.222,其次是ML-NMR(0.255)。国际广播电台的报道也遵循了类似的模式。NMI在估计精度和CrI覆盖方面的优势似乎在所有情景中都是一致的。在存在研究不平衡和可用亚组数据的情况下,NMI是NMA的有效选择。
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
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A tutorial on aggregating evidence from conceptual replication studies using the product Bayes factor Evolving use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool in biomedical systematic reviews Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta-analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review An evaluation of the performance of stopping rules in AI-aided screening for psychological meta-analytical research
×
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