45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Joint synthesis of multiple correlated outcomes in networks of interventions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Multiple outcomes multivariate meta-analysis (MOMA) is gaining in popularity as a tool for jointly synthesizing evidence coming from studies that report effect estimates for multiple correlated outcomes. Models for MOMA are available for the case of the pairwise meta-analysis of two treatments for multiple outcomes. Network meta-analysis (NMA) can be used for handling studies that compare more than two treatments; however, there is currently little guidance on how to perform an MOMA for the case of a network of interventions with multiple outcomes. The aim of this paper is to address this issue by proposing two models for synthesizing evidence from multi-arm studies reporting on multiple correlated outcomes for networks of competing treatments. Our models can handle continuous, binary, time-to-event or mixed outcomes, with or without availability of within-study correlations. They are set in a Bayesian framework to allow flexibility in fitting and assigning prior distributions to the parameters of interest while fully accounting for parameter uncertainty. As an illustrative example, we use a network of interventions for acute mania, which contains multi-arm studies reporting on two correlated binary outcomes: response rate and dropout rate. Both multiple-outcomes NMA models produce narrower confidence intervals compared with independent, univariate network meta-analyses for each outcome and have an impact on the relative ranking of the treatments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

          Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acute mania. We did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounted for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of all antimanic drugs. We systematically reviewed 68 randomised controlled trials (16,073 participants) from Jan 1, 1980, to Nov 25, 2010, which compared any of the following pharmacological drugs at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of acute mania in adults: aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, valproate, gabapentin, haloperidol, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, topiramate, and ziprasidone. The main outcomes were the mean change on mania rating scales and the number of patients who dropped out of the allocated treatment at 3 weeks. Analysis was done by intention to treat. Haloperidol (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·56 [95% CI -0·69 to -0·43]), risperidone (-0·50 [-0·63 to -0·38), olanzapine (-0·43 [-0·54 to -0·32], lithium (-0·37 [-0·63 to -0·11]), quetiapine (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), aripiprazole (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), carbamazepine (-0·36 [-0·60 to -0·11], asenapine (-0·30 [-0·53 to -0·07]), valproate (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·04]), and ziprasidone (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·03]) were significantly more effective than placebo, whereas gabapentin, lamotrigine, and topiramate were not. Haloperidol had the highest number of significant differences and was significantly more effective than lithium (SMD -0·19 [95% CI -0·36 to -0·01]), quetiapine (-0·19 [-0·37 to 0·01]), aripiprazole (-0·19 [-0·36 to -0·02]), carbamazepine (-0·20 [-0·36 to -0·01]), asenapine (-0·26 [-0·52 to 0·01]), valproate (-0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), ziprasidone -0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), lamotrigine (-0·48 [-0·77 to -0·19]), topiramate (-0·63 [-0·84 to -0·43]), and gabapentin (-0·88 [-1·40 to -0·36]). Risperidone and olanzapine had a very similar profile of comparative efficacy, being more effective than valproate, ziprasidone, lamotrigine, topiramate, and gabapentin. Olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine led to significantly fewer discontinuations than did lithium, lamotrigine, placebo, topiramate, and gabapentin. Overall, antipsychotic drugs were significantly more effective than mood stabilisers. Risperidone, olanzapine, and haloperidol should be considered as among the best of the available options for the treatment of manic episodes. These results should be considered in the development of clinical practice guidelines. None. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise

            The multivariate random effects model is a generalization of the standard univariate model. Multivariate meta-analysis is becoming more commonly used and the techniques and related computer software, although continually under development, are now in place. In order to raise awareness of the multivariate methods, and discuss their advantages and disadvantages, we organized a one day ‘Multivariate meta-analysis’ event at the Royal Statistical Society. In addition to disseminating the most recent developments, we also received an abundance of comments, concerns, insights, critiques and encouragement. This article provides a balanced account of the day's discourse. By giving others the opportunity to respond to our assessment, we hope to ensure that the various view points and opinions are aired before multivariate meta-analysis simply becomes another widely used de facto method without any proper consideration of it by the medical statistics community. We describe the areas of application that multivariate meta-analysis has found, the methods available, the difficulties typically encountered and the arguments for and against the multivariate methods, using four representative but contrasting examples. We conclude that the multivariate methods can be useful, and in particular can provide estimates with better statistical properties, but also that these benefits come at the price of making more assumptions which do not result in better inference in every case. Although there is evidence that multivariate meta-analysis has considerable potential, it must be even more carefully applied than its univariate counterpart in practice. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A practical introduction to multivariate meta-analysis.

              Multivariate meta-analysis is becoming increasingly popular and official routines or self-programmed functions have been included in many statistical software. In this article, we review the statistical methods and the related software for multivariate meta-analysis. Emphasis is placed on Bayesian methods using Markov chain Monte Carlo, and codes in WinBUGS are provided. The various model-fitting options are illustrated in two examples and specific guidance is provided on how to run a multivariate meta-analysis using various software packages.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biostatistics
                Biostatistics
                biosts
                biosts
                Biostatistics (Oxford, England)
                Oxford University Press
                1465-4644
                1468-4357
                January 2015
                02 July 2014
                02 July 2014
                : 16
                : 1
                : 84-97
                Affiliations
                Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, 1186 Ioannina 45110, Greece
                Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, 1186 Ioannina 45110, Greece
                Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, 1186 Ioannina 45110, Greece
                School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B152TT, UK
                Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, OX37JX, UK WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Policlinico Giambattista Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, 37134 Verona, Italy
                Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, 1186, Ioannina, 45110, Greece
                Author notes
                [* ]To whom correspondence should be addressed. gsalanti@ 123456cc.uoi.gr
                Article
                kxu030
                10.1093/biostatistics/kxu030
                4481542
                24992934
                5833ef89-4d00-4545-9b74-d19f7245fa89
                © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 November 2013
                : 27 May 2014
                : 27 May 2014
                Categories
                Articles

                Biostatistics
                correlation,heterogeneity,mixed-treatment comparison,multivariate meta-analysis
                Biostatistics
                correlation, heterogeneity, mixed-treatment comparison, multivariate meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article