Network meta-analysis including treatment by covariate interactions: Consistency can vary across covariate values.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Wiley Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101543738 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1759-2887 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17592879 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Res Synth Methods Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: : Chichester : Wiley Blackwell
      Original Publication: Malden, MA : John Wiley & Sons, 2010-
    • Subject Terms:
      Network Meta-Analysis* ; Research Design*; Artemisinins/*therapeutic use ; Malaria/*drug therapy; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Algorithms ; Bayes Theorem ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Models, Statistical ; Odds Ratio ; Probability ; Time Factors ; Young Adult
    • Abstract:
      Background: Many reviews aim to compare numerous treatments and report results stratified by subgroups (eg, by disease severity). In such cases, a network meta-analysis model including treatment by covariate interactions can estimate the relative effects of all treatment pairings for each subgroup of patients. Two key assumptions underlie such models: consistency of treatment effects and consistency of the regression coefficients for the interactions. Consistency may differ depending on the covariate value at which consistency is assessed. For valid inference, we need to be confident of consistency for the relevant range of covariate values. In this paper, we demonstrate how to assess consistency of treatment effects from direct and indirect evidence at various covariate values.
      Methods: Consistency is assessed using visual inspection, inconsistency estimates, and probabilities. The method is applied to an individual patient dataset comparing artemisinin combination therapies for treating uncomplicated malaria in children using the covariate age.
      Results: The magnitude of the inconsistency appears to be decreasing with increasing age for each comparison. For one comparison, direct and indirect evidence differ for age 1 (P = .05), and this brings results for age 1 for all comparisons into question.
      Conclusion: When fitting models including interactions, the consistency of direct and indirect evidence must be assessed across the range of covariates included in the trials. Clinical inferences are only valid for covariate values for which results are consistent.
      (© 2017 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
    • References:
      Trials. 2007 Nov 05;8:34. (PMID: 17983480)
      Stat Med. 2008 May 20;27(11):1870-93. (PMID: 18069721)
      Stat Med. 1996 Dec 30;15(24):2733-49. (PMID: 8981683)
      Res Synth Methods. 2013 Dec;4(4):291-323. (PMID: 26053945)
      BMJ. 2003 Mar 1;326(7387):472. (PMID: 12609941)
      Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):80-97. (PMID: 26062083)
      Stat Med. 2012 Dec 10;31(28):3516-36. (PMID: 22764016)
      Stat Med. 2009 Jun 30;28(14):1861-81. (PMID: 19399825)
      Stat Med. 2012 Dec 20;31(29):3840-57. (PMID: 22786621)
      Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):177-90. (PMID: 26062089)
      Stat Med. 2013 Mar 15;32(6):914-30. (PMID: 22987606)
      Clin Trials. 2008;5(4):301-7. (PMID: 18697844)
      Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):618-40. (PMID: 23804507)
      Res Synth Methods. 2017 Dec;8(4):485-495. (PMID: 28732142)
      Stat Med. 2002 Aug 30;21(16):2313-24. (PMID: 12210616)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):875-82. (PMID: 20080027)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91. (PMID: 9250266)
      Res Synth Methods. 2011 Mar;2(1):43-60. (PMID: 26061599)
      Control Clin Trials. 2000 Oct;21(5):488-97. (PMID: 11018565)
      Stat Med. 2017 Feb 28;36(5):772-789. (PMID: 27910122)
      Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):111-25. (PMID: 26062085)
      Stat Methods Med Res. 2008 Jun;17(3):279-301. (PMID: 17925316)
      Stat Med. 2004 Oct 30;23(20):3105-24. (PMID: 15449338)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):857-64. (PMID: 19157778)
      Stat Med. 2007 Mar 15;26(6):1237-54. (PMID: 16900557)
      BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Oct 08;12:152. (PMID: 23043545)
      PLoS One. 2015 Jun 01;10(6):e0128804. (PMID: 26029923)
      Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):98-110. (PMID: 26062084)
      Stat Med. 2010 Mar 30;29(7-8):932-44. (PMID: 20213715)
      Res Synth Methods. 2012 Dec;3(4):312-24. (PMID: 26053424)
      PLoS Med. 2011 Nov;8(11):e1001119. (PMID: 22087077)
      Res Synth Methods. 2016 Mar;7(1):80-93. (PMID: 26461181)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 May;61(5):455-63. (PMID: 18394538)
    • Grant Information:
      MR/M005615/1 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; MR/P015298/1 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; MR/K025643/1 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; MR/M005232/1 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; MC_UP_A900_1119 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; MR/K021435/1 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: consistency; indirect comparison; individual patient data; meta-regression; mnetwork meta-analysis; treatment by covariate interaction
    • Accession Number:
      0 (Artemisinins)
      9RMU91N5K2 (artemisinin)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20170722 Date Completed: 20180806 Latest Revision: 20210915
    • Publication Date:
      20221216
    • Accession Number:
      PMC5724666
    • Accession Number:
      10.1002/jrsm.1257
    • Accession Number:
      28732142