首页> 外文期刊>Statistics in medicine >Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: Individual patient-level covariates versus aggregate trial-level covariates
【24h】

Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: Individual patient-level covariates versus aggregate trial-level covariates

机译:通过在混合治疗比较荟萃分析中探讨协变量相互作用的治疗来评估一致假设:个体患者级协变量与汇总试验级协变量

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis allows several treatments to be compared in a single analysis while utilising direct and indirect evidence. Treatment by covariate interactions can be included in MTC models to explore how the covariate modifies the treatment effects. If interactions exist, the assumptions underlying MTCs may be invalidated. For conventional pair-wise meta-analysis, important benefits regarding the investigation of such interactions, gained from using individual patient data (IPD) rather than aggregate data (AD), have been described. We aim to compare IPD MTC models including patient-level covariates with AD MTC models including study-level covariates. IPD and AD random-effects MTC models for dichotomous outcomes are specified. Three assumptions are made regarding the interactions (i.e. independent, exchangeable and common interactions). The models are applied to a dataset to compare four drugs for treating malaria (i.e. amodiaquine-artesunate, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAPQ), artemether-lumefantrine and chlorproguanil-dapsone plus artesunate) using the outcome unadjusted treatment success at day 28. The treatment effects and regression coefficients for interactions from the IPD models were more precise than those from AD models. Using IPD, assuming independent or exchangeable interactions, the regression coefficient for chlorproguanil-dapsone plus artesunate versus DHAPQ was statistically significant and assuming common interactions, the common coefficient was significant; whereas using AD, no coefficients were significant. Using IPD, DHAPQ was the best drug; whereas using AD, the best drug varied. Using AD models, there was no evidence that the consistency assumption was invalid; whereas, the assumption was questionable based on the IPD models. The AD analyses were misleading.
机译:混合处理比较(MTC)META分析允许在利用直接和间接证据的同时在单一分析中进行多种处理。通过协变量相互作用的处理可以包括在MTC模型中,以探索协变量如何改变治疗效果。如果存在互动,则MTCS底层的假设可能是无效的。对于传统的成对性荟萃分析,已经描述了关于使用单个患者数据(IPD)而不是聚合数据(AD)来研究这种相互作用的重要益处。我们的目标是将IPD MTC模型与患者级协变量进行比较,具有广告MTC模型,包括学习级协变量。指定了IPD和AD随机效应用于二分异构结果的MTC模型。关于相互作用的三个假设(即独立,可交换和常见的相互作用)。该模型应用于数据集,以比较四种治疗疟疾药物(即,在第28天的结果不调整治疗成功的结果,可以使用患者治疗疟疾治疗疟疾(即氨基喹啉素,二氢氨基氨基 - 疫苗(DHAPQ),蒿甲虫毒素和氯代氏菌,而Artesunate)。治疗效果来自IPD模型的交互的回归系数比广告模型的相互作用更精确。使用IPD,假设独立或可交换的相互作用,氯化群菌 - 龙酮加艺术与DHAPQ的回归系数有统计学意义和假设常见的相互作用,常见系数是显着的;虽然使用广告,但没有系数显着。使用IPD,DHAPQ是最好的药物;虽然使用广告,但最佳药物变化。使用广告模型,没有证据表明一致性假设无效;鉴于IPD模型,假设是值得怀疑的。广告分析是误导性的。

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