Abstract
BackgroundNetwork meta-analysis synthesises data from a number of clinical trials in order to assess the comparative efficacy of multiple healthcare interventions in similar patient populations. In situations where clinical trial data are heterogeneously reported i.e. data are missing for one or more outcomes of interest, synthesising such data can lead to disconnected networks of evidence, increased uncertainty, and potentially biased estimates which can have severe implications for decision-making. To overcome this issue, strength can be borrowed between outcomes of interest in multivariate network meta-analyses. Furthermore, in situations where there are relatively few trials informing each treatment comparison, there is a potential issue with the sparsity of data in the treatment networks, which can lead to substantial parameter uncertainty. A multivariate network meta-analysis approach can be further extended to borrow strength between interventions of the same class using hierarchical models.MethodsWe extend the trivariate network meta-analysis model to incorporate the exchangeability between treatment effects belonging to the same class of intervention to increase precision in treatment effect estimates. We further incorporate a missing data framework to estimate uncertainty in trials that did not report measures of variability in order to maximise the use of all available information for healthcare decision-making. The methods are applied to a motivating dataset in overactive bladder syndrome. The outcomes of interest were mean change from baseline in incontinence, voiding and urgency episodes. All models were fitted using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods in WinBUGS.ResultsAll models (univariate, multivariate, and multivariate models incorporating class effects) produced similar point estimates for all treatment effects. Incorporating class effects in multivariate models often increased precision in treatment effect estimates.ConclusionsMultivariate network meta-analysis incorporating class effects allowed for the comparison of all interventions across all outcome measures to ameliorate the potential impact of outcome reporting bias, and further borrowed strength between interventions belonging to the same class of treatment to increase the precision in treatment effect estimates for healthcare policy and decision-making.
Highlights
Network meta-analysis synthesises data from a number of clinical trials in order to assess the comparative efficacy of multiple healthcare interventions in similar patient populations
For interventions that were evaluated for urgency in the original trials but disconnected from the univariate network of evidence (Fig. 3), e.g. reflexology (71), a Multivariate network meta-analysis (MVNMA) could borrow information between outcomes for which they were connected, in order to complete the network of evidence
Different choices of prior distributions for variance parameters had very little impact in Discussion This paper extends the MVNMA framework described by Achana et al [7], to incorporate the exchangeability of interventions belonging to the same class of interventions
Summary
Network meta-analysis synthesises data from a number of clinical trials in order to assess the comparative efficacy of multiple healthcare interventions in similar patient populations. In situations where clinical trial data are heterogeneously reported i.e. data are missing for one or more outcomes of interest, synthesising such data can lead to disconnected networks of evidence, increased uncertainty, and potentially biased estimates which can have severe implications for decision-making To overcome this issue, strength can be borrowed between outcomes of interest in multivariate network meta-analyses. For the studies that did not report certain outcomes of interest, it is possible to obtain a predictive value for missing data by modelling the treatment effects on multiple outcomes jointly, taking into account the correlation between them This methodology can increase the information for decision making, but it can limit the potential for outcome reporting bias in the original trials [5, 6], and increase precision and confidence in the treatment effect estimates [7]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.