首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Epidemiology >A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners.
【24h】

A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners.

机译:在随机试验的个体参加者数据荟萃分析中评估患者水平相互作用的方法的重要综述,以及对从业人员的指导。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: Treatments may be more effective in some patients than others, and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials provides perhaps the best method of investigating treatment-covariate interactions. Various methods are used; we provide a comprehensive critique and develop guidance on method selection. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE to identify all frequentist methods and appraised them for simplicity, risk of bias, and power. IPD data sets were reanalyzed. RESULTS: Four methodological categories were identified: PWT: pooling of within-trial covariate interactions; OSM: one-stage difference between covariate subgroups in their pooled treatment effects; and CWA: combining PWT with meta-regression. Distinguishing across- and within-trial information is important, as the former may be subject to ecological bias. A strategy is proposed for method selection in different circumstances; PWT or CWA are natural first steps. The OSM method allows for more complex analyses; TDCS should be avoided. Our reanalysis shows that different methods can lead to substantively different findings. CONCLUSION: The choice of method for investigating interactions in IPD meta-analysis is driven mainly by whether across-trial information is considered for inclusion, a decision, which depends on balancing possible improvement in power with an increased risk of bias.
机译:目的:某些患者的治疗可能比其他患者更有效,并且对随机试验的个体参加者数据(IPD)荟萃分析可能是研究治疗-协变量相互作用的最佳方法。使用各种方法。我们提供全面的评论,并就方法选择提供指导。研究设计和设置:我们在MEDLINE中进行了搜索,以识别所有常用方法,并对它们的简单性,偏倚风险和能力进行了评估。重新分析了IPD数据集。结果:确定了四个方法学类别:PWT:审判内协变量相互作用的集合; OSM:协变量亚组在合并治疗效果方面的一阶段差异;和CWA:将PWT与元回归相结合。区分跨审判和审判内的信息很重要,因为前者可能会受到生态偏见的影响。提出了一种在不同情况下选择方法的策略; PWT或CWA是自然的第一步。 OSM方法可以进行更复杂的分析。应避免使用TDCS。我们的重新分析表明,不同的方法可以导致实质上不同的发现。结论:在IPD荟萃分析中调查相互作用的方法的选择主要取决于是否考虑跨试验信息的纳入,这一决定取决于平衡可能的权力提升与增加的偏见风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号