» Articles » PMID: 32407766

Uptake of Methodological Advances for Synthesis of Continuous and Time-to-event Outcomes Would Maximize Use of the Evidence Base

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Public Health
Date 2020 May 15
PMID 32407766
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study is to establish how often continuous and time-to-event outcomes are synthesized in health technology assessment (HTA), the statistical methods and software used in their analysis and how often evidence synthesis informs decision models.

Study Design And Setting: This is a review of National Institute of Health Research HTA reports, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals, and NICE guidelines reporting quantitative meta-analysis or network meta-analysis of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome published from April 01, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Results: We identified 47 eligible articles. At least one continuous or time-to-event outcome was synthesized in 51% and 55% of articles, respectively. Evidence synthesis results informed decision models in two-thirds of articles. The review and expert knowledge identified five areas where methodology is available for improving the synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes: i) outcomes reported on multiple scales, ii) reporting of multiple related outcomes, iii) appropriateness of the additive scale, iv) reporting of multiple time points, and v) nonproportional hazards. We identified three anticipated barriers to the uptake and implementation of these methods: i) statistical expertise, ii) software, and iii) reporting of trials.

Conclusion: Continuous and time-to-event outcomes are routinely reported in HTA. However, increased uptake of methodological advances could maximize the evidence base used to inform the decision making process.

Citing Articles

Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Petersohn S, McGregor B, Klijn S, May J, Ejzykowicz F, Kurt M J Comp Eff Res. 2023; 12(8):e230004.

PMID: 37431849 PMC: 10508301. DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0004.


Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A One-Stage Meta-Analysis.

Chew N, Koh J, Ng C, Tan D, Yong J, Lin C Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9:822228.

PMID: 35402572 PMC: 8990308. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.822228.


Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

Ngoi N, Syn N, Goh R, Goh B, Huang R, Soon Y Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 2:CD012007.

PMID: 35188221 PMC: 8859866. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012007.pub2.


Challenges of modelling approaches for network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes in the presence of non-proportional hazards to aid decision making: Application to a melanoma network.

Freeman S, Cooper N, Sutton A, Crowther M, Carpenter J, Hawkins N Stat Methods Med Res. 2022; 31(5):839-861.

PMID: 35044255 PMC: 9014691. DOI: 10.1177/09622802211070253.

References
1.
Altman D, Royston P . The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006; 332(7549):1080. PMC: 1458573. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080. View

2.
Lu G, Ades A, Sutton A, Cooper N, Briggs A, Caldwell D . Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med. 2007; 26(20):3681-99. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2831. View

3.
Hickey G, Philipson P, Jorgensen A, Kolamunnage-Dona R . joineRML: a joint model and software package for time-to-event and multivariate longitudinal outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):50. PMC: 6047371. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0502-1. View

4.
Lu G, Brazier J, Ades A . Mapping from disease-specific to generic health-related quality-of-life scales: a common factor model. Value Health. 2013; 16(1):177-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.003. View

5.
Murad M, Wang Z, Chu H, Lin L . When continuous outcomes are measured using different scales: guide for meta-analysis and interpretation. BMJ. 2019; 364:k4817. PMC: 6890471. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k4817. View