A comparison of one-stage vs two-stage individual patient data meta-analysis methods: A simulation study

被引:55
作者
Kontopantelis, Evangelos [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Fac Biol Med & Hlth, Manchester, Lancs, England
[2] Univ Manchester, NIHR Sch Primary Care Res, Manchester, Lancs, England
关键词
individual patient data; IPD; meta-analysis; one-stage; one-step; two-stage; two-step; PARTICIPANT DATA METAANALYSIS; MULTIPLE IMPUTATION; STATISTICAL-METHODS; RANDOMIZED-TRIALS; IPD METAANALYSIS; HETEROGENEITY; PERFORMANCE; TRUE;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1303
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for the exploration of heterogeneity and can identify subgroups that most benefit from an intervention (or exposure), much more successfully than meta-analysis of aggregate data. One-stage or two-stage IPD meta-analysis is possible, with the former using mixed-effects regression models and the latter obtaining study estimates through simpler regression models before aggregating using standard meta-analysis methodology. However, a comprehensive comparison of the two methods, in practice, is lacking. Methods: We generated 1000 datasets for each of many simulation scenarios covering different IPD sizes and different between-study variance (heterogeneity) assumptions at various levels (intercept and exposure). Numerous simulation settings of different assumptions were also used, while we evaluated performance both on main effects and interaction effects. Performance was assessed on mean bias, mean error, coverage, and power. Results: Fully specified one-stage models (random study intercept or fixed study-specific intercept; random exposure effect; and fixed study-specific effects for covariate) were the best performers overall, especially when investigating interactions. For main effects, performance was almost identical across models unless intercept heterogeneity was present, in which case the fully specified one-stage and the two-stage models performed better. For interaction effects, differences across models were greater with the two-stage model consistently outperformed by the two fully specified one-stage models. Conclusions: A fully specified one-stage model should be preferred (accounting for potential exposure, intercept, and, possibly, interaction heterogeneity), especially when investigating interactions. If non-convergence is encountered with a random study intercept, the fixed study-specific intercept one-stage model should be used instead.
引用
收藏
页码:417 / 430
页数:14
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], META ANALYSIS OF CON
[2]   A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis [J].
Brockwell, SE ;
Gordon, IR .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (06) :825-840
[3]   Combining multiple imputation and meta-analysis with individual participant data [J].
Burgess, Stephen ;
White, Ian R. ;
Resche-Rigon, Matthieu ;
Wood, Angela M. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (26) :4499-4514
[4]   Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ [J].
Burke, Danielle L. ;
Ensor, Joie ;
Riley, Richard D. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2017, 36 (05) :855-875
[5]   Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology [J].
Debray, Thomas P. A. ;
Moons, Karel G. M. ;
van Valkenhoef, Gert ;
Efthimiou, Orestis ;
Hummel, Noemi ;
Groenwold, Rolf H. H. ;
Reitsma, Johannes B. .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2015, 6 (04) :293-309
[6]   Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis for a Binary Outcome: One-Stage or Two-Stage? [J].
Debray, Thomas P. A. ;
Moons, Karel G. M. ;
Abo-Zaid, Ghada Mohammed Abdallah ;
Koffijberg, Hendrik ;
Riley, Richard David .
PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (04)
[7]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[8]   Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach? [J].
Fisher, David J. ;
Carpenter, James R. ;
Morris, Tim P. ;
Freeman, Suzanne C. ;
Tierney, Jayne F. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 356
[9]   Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis and generalized forest plots [J].
Fisher, David J. .
STATA JOURNAL, 2015, 15 (02) :369-396
[10]   Handling incomplete correlated continuous and binary outcomes in meta-analysis of individual participant data [J].
Gomes, Manuel ;
Hatfield, Laura ;
Normand, Sharon-Lise .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2016, 35 (21) :3676-3689