Prespecification of subgroup analyses and examination of treatment-subgroup interactions in cancer individual participant data meta-analyses are suboptimal

Gao, Ya; Liu, Ming; Shi, Sheng; Niu, Mingming; Jiang, Li; Zhang, Junhua; Tian, Jinhui

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.019

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The original data of each participant are required 64,65 . IPD‐NMAs can better explore the heterogeneity and inconsistency and identify interactions of patient‐level effect modifiers through more flexible subgroup analysis and modelling, thereby increasing the applicability of research results and improving the credibility of the results 66–71 . In 2012, Saramago et al 72 .…”

Section: Methodological Progress Of Different Types Of Network Meta‐a...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…64,65 IPD-NMAs can better explore the heterogeneity and inconsistency and identify interactions of patient-level effect modifiers through more flexible subgroup analysis and modelling, thereby increasing the applicability of research results and improving the credibility of the results. [66][67][68][69][70][71] In 2012, Saramago et al 72 74 presented a novel NMA modeling method that allows the synthesis of IPD on time to event (with censoring) and AD on event count (for a given follow-up time) by assuming an underlying distribution of time to healing. In 2015, Hong et al 75 proposed a Bayesian IPD-NMA modeling framework for multiple continuous outcomes under both contrast-based and arm-based parameterisations.…”

Section: Network Meta-analyses Of Individual Participant Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progress and challenges of network meta‐analysis

Tian

Gao

Zhang

et al. 2021

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodological Progress Of Different Types Of Network Meta‐a...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Network Meta-analyses Of Individual Participant Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress and challenges of network meta‐analysis

Tian

Gao

Zhang

et al. 2021

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To make the result of our cross-sectional study fairer and more reliable, and based on our research group's previous similar research experience, 17,18…”

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After referring to several methodological studies, 17,18,25 we used the PRISMA-IPD statement to assess the reporting quality of included…”

Section: Reporting Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 Another study also found a lack of details for the test of treatment-subgroup interaction, and subgroup analyses are insufficiently prespecified in cancer IPD-MAs. 18 Wang et al found that the methodological quality of IPD-MA is unsatisfactory and made suggestions for future methodological improvements. 19 However, to our knowledge, there needs to be a comprehensive and unified recognition of the quality of published IPD-MAs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta‐analyses: A cross‐sectional study

Liu

Gao

Yang

et al. 2023

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta‐analyses (IPD‐MAs). Methods We searched the Cochrane Library and identified the Cochrane IPD‐MAs. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses of individual participant data (PRISMA‐IPD) assessed the reporting quality of included Cochrane IPD‐ MAs, and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We performed stratified and correlation analyses to explore factors affecting the quality. Results Forty‐six Cochrane IPD‐MAs were included in our study. Twenty‐six Cochrane IPD‐MAs (56.5%) had statistical or epidemiological authors involved, and 31 (67.4%) contained only IPD data. Thirty‐five studies (76.1%) did not report whether they used 1‐stage or 2‐stage methods, and forty (87.0%) did not report the statistical techniques used for missing participant data. We found that the entire compliance reported PRISMA‐IPD items of Cochrane IPD‐MAs published after 2015 (n = 18; Mean ± SD: 26.61 ± 2.75) was higher than those studies published in 2015 and before (n = 28; Mean ± SD: 22.61 ± 4.73), the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). A strong positive correlation was found between the fully reported PRISMA‐IPD items and fully accordance ROBIS items (Spearman's: ρ = 0.653, p < 0.001). Conclusions The quality of Cochrane IPD‐MAs is not high, especially in the reporting of statistical methods. There was room for further improvement in IPD retrieval, IPD integrity and statistical analyses.

show abstract

Individual participant data meta‐analysis to examine linear or non‐linear treatment‐covariate interactions at multiple time‐points for a continuous outcome

Hattle,

Ensor,

Scandrett

et al. 2024

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis projects obtain, harmonise, and synthesise original data from multiple studies. Many IPD meta‐analyses of randomised trials are initiated to identify treatment effect modifiers at the individual level, thus requiring statistical modelling of interactions between treatment effect and participant‐level covariates. Using a two‐stage approach, the interaction is estimated in each trial separately and combined in a meta‐analysis. In practice, two complications often arise with continuous outcomes: examining non‐linear relationships for continuous covariates and dealing with multiple time‐points. We propose a two‐stage multivariate IPD meta‐analysis approach that summarises non‐linear treatment‐covariate interaction functions at multiple time‐points for continuous outcomes. A set‐up phase is required to identify a small set of time‐points; relevant knot positions for a spline function, at identical locations in each trial; and a common reference group for each covariate. Crucially, the multivariate approach can include participants or trials with missing outcomes at some time‐points. In the first stage, restricted cubic spline functions are fitted and their interaction with each discrete time‐point is estimated in each trial separately. In the second stage, the parameter estimates defining these multiple interaction functions are jointly synthesised in a multivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis model accounting for within‐trial and across‐trial correlation. These meta‐analysis estimates define the summary non‐linear interactions at each time‐point, which can be displayed graphically alongside confidence intervals. The approach is illustrated using an IPD meta‐analysis examining effect modifiers for exercise interventions in osteoarthritis, which shows evidence of non‐linear relationships and small gains in precision by analysing all time‐points jointly.

show abstract

Prespecification of subgroup analyses and examination of treatment-subgroup interactions in cancer individual participant data meta-analyses are suboptimal

Cited by 5 publications

References 48 publications

Progress and challenges of network meta‐analysis

Progress and challenges of network meta‐analysis

Reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta‐analyses: A cross‐sectional study

Individual participant data meta‐analysis to examine linear or non‐linear treatment‐covariate interactions at multiple time‐points for a continuous outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About