Nonlinear Effects and Effect Modification at the Participant-level in IPD Meta-analysis Part 2: Methodological Guidance is Available

Overview

Journal J Clin Epidemiol

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Public Health

Date 2023 May 5

PMID 37146657

Authors

Nadine Marlin

Peter J Godolphin

Richard L Hooper

Richard D Riley

Ewelina Rogozinska

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To review methodological guidance for nonlinear covariate-outcome associations (NL), and linear effect modification and nonlinear effect modification (LEM and NLEM) at the participant level in individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) and their power requirements.

Study Design And Setting: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library to identify methodology publications on IPDMA of LEM, NL or NLEM (PROSPERO CRD42019126768).

Results: Through screening 6,466 records we identified 54 potential articles of which 23 full texts were relevant. Nine further relevant publications were published before or after the literature search and were added. Of these 32 references, 21 articles considered LEM, 6 articles NL or NLEM and 6 articles described sample size calculations. A book described all four. Sample size may be calculated through simulation or closed form. Assessments of LEM or NLEM at the participant level need to be based on within-trial information alone. Nonlinearity (NL or NLEM) can be modeled using polynomials or splines to avoid categorization.

Conclusion: Detailed methodological guidance on IPDMA of effect modification at participant-level is available. However, methodology papers for sample size and nonlinearity are rarer and may not cover all scenarios. On these aspects, further guidance is needed.

Citing Articles

Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses.

Godolphin P, Marlin N, Cornett C, Fisher D, Tierney J, White I Res Synth Methods. 2023; 15(1):107-116.

PMID: 37771175 PMC: 7617190. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1674.

Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 1: analysis methods are often substandard.

Marlin N, Godolphin P, Hooper R, Riley R, Rogozinska E J Clin Epidemiol. 2023; 159:309-318.

PMID: 37146661 PMC: 7616832. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.013.

References

Kontopantelis E . A comparison of one-stage vs two-stage individual patient data meta-analysis methods: A simulation study. Res Synth Methods. 2018; 9(3):417-430. PMC: 6175226. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1303. View

Rhee R, Gabler N, Sangani S, Praestgaard A, Merkel P, Kawut S . Comparison of Treatment Response in Idiopathic and Connective Tissue Disease-associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015; 192(9):1111-7. PMC: 4642205. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201507-1456OC. View

Belias M, Rovers M, Hoogland J, Reitsma J, Debray T, IntHout J . Predicting personalised absolute treatment effects in individual participant data meta-analysis: An introduction to splines. Res Synth Methods. 2022; 13(2):255-283. PMC: 9303665. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1546. View

Fisher D, Carpenter J, Morris T, Freeman S, Tierney J . Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?. BMJ. 2017; 356:j573. PMC: 5421441. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j573. View

Godolphin P, White I, Tierney J, Fisher D . Estimating interactions and subgroup-specific treatment effects in meta-analysis without aggregation bias: A within-trial framework. Res Synth Methods. 2022; 14(1):68-78. PMC: 10087172. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1590. View

Mistry D, Stallard N, Underwood M . A recursive partitioning approach for subgroup identification in individual patient data meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2018; 37(9):1550-1561. PMC: 5900744. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7609. View

Chen B, Benedetti A . Quantifying heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis with binary outcomes. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1):243. PMC: 5718085. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0630-4. View

Hua H, Burke D, Crowther M, Ensor J, Tudur Smith C, Riley R . One-stage individual participant data meta-analysis models: estimation of treatment-covariate interactions must avoid ecological bias by separating out within-trial and across-trial information. Stat Med. 2016; 36(5):772-789. PMC: 5299543. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7171. View

Morris T, Fisher D, Kenward M, Carpenter J . Meta-analysis of Gaussian individual patient data: Two-stage or not two-stage?. Stat Med. 2018; 37(9):1419-1438. PMC: 5901423. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7589. View

10.

Riley R, Hattle M, Collins G, Whittle R, Ensor J . Calculating the power to examine treatment-covariate interactions when planning an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a binary outcome. Stat Med. 2022; 41(24):4822-4837. PMC: 9805219. DOI: 10.1002/sim.9538. View

11.

Gao Y, Liu M, Shi S, Niu M, Li J, Zhang J . Prespecification of subgroup analyses and examination of treatment-subgroup interactions in cancer individual participant data meta-analyses are suboptimal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 138:156-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.019. View

12.

Papadimitropoulou K, Stijnen T, Riley R, Dekkers O, le Cessie S . Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: Using pseudo IPD created from aggregate data to adjust for baseline imbalance and assess treatment-by-baseline modification. Res Synth Methods. 2020; 11(6):780-794. PMC: 7754323. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1434. View

13.

Sauerbrei W, Royston P . A new strategy for meta-analysis of continuous covariates in observational studies. Stat Med. 2011; 30(28):3341-60. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4333. View

14.

Kasenda B, Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Mercat A, Slutsky A, Cook D . Multivariable fractional polynomial interaction to investigate continuous effect modifiers in a meta-analysis on higher versus lower PEEP for patients with ARDS. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(9):e011148. PMC: 5020750. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011148. View

15.

Noma H, Maruo K, Gosho M, Levine S, Goldberg Y, Leucht S . Efficient two-step multivariate random effects meta-analysis of individual participant data for longitudinal clinical trials using mixed effects models. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1):33. PMC: 6376708. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0676-1. View

16.

Kovalchik S, Cumberland W . Using aggregate data to estimate the standard error of a treatment-covariate interaction in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Biom J. 2012; 54(3):370-84. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201100167. View

17.

White I, Kaptoge S, Royston P, Sauerbrei W . Meta-analysis of non-linear exposure-outcome relationships using individual participant data: A comparison of two methods. Stat Med. 2018; 38(3):326-338. PMC: 6492097. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7974. View

18.

Brookes S, Whitely E, Egger M, Davey Smith G, Mulheran P, Peters T . Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57(3):229-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08.009. View

19.

Jiao Y, Mun E, Trikalinos T, Xie M . A CD-based mapping method for combining multiple related parameters from heterogeneous intervention trials. Stat Interface. 2020; 13(4):533-549. PMC: 7497794. DOI: 10.4310/sii.2020.v13.n4.a10. View

20.

Riley R, Price M, Jackson D, Wardle M, Gueyffier F, Wang J . Multivariate meta-analysis using individual participant data. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 6(2):157-74. PMC: 4847645. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1129. View