Absolute or relative effects? Arm-based synthesis of trial data.
Absolute or relative effects? Arm-based synthesis of trial data.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jrsm.1184
复制
发表时间：
2016-03
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Ades, A. E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dias, S.;Ades, A. E.
荟萃分析的标准方法是基于对比的模型，其中汇总的试验信息是试验特异性相对治疗效应的信息，例如表示为对数相对风险、对数比值比或平均治疗差异。在基于组的模型中，每个组的绝对对数风险、对数比值或平均结果被合并，毫无疑问，基于组的模型是对公认的荟萃分析理解的一种有趣的替代方案，它们为网络荟萃分析（NMA）提供了一种非常优雅的替代方法。然而，《研究综合方法》（RSM）的读者将不难认识到，基于手臂的模型代表了对当前元分析实践的根本性甚至革命性的背离。在这篇评论中，我们开始概述了基于臂和基于对比的荟萃分析之间的关键区别，以明确所提出的主张的含义的真实程度。然后，我们认为，基于对比度的模型是首选的理论和实践的理由。Hong及其同事在他们的RSM论文（Hong et al.，2015a）和先前（Zhang et al.，2014年，Ohlssen等人，2014，Zhang等人，2015，Hong等人，2015b），我们认为这是错误的。我们提供了一些反论点和评论的模拟研究提出的洪等人。（2015年a）。
The standard approach to meta-analysis is the contrast-based model where the information that is pooled over trials is the information of the trial-specific relative treatment effect, expressed for example as a log relative risk, log odds ratio, or as a mean treatment difference. In an arm-based model, it is the absolute log risk, log odds, or mean outcome on each arm that are pooled.There is no doubt that arm-based models are an intriguing alternative to the accepted understanding of metaanalysis, and that they provide a very elegant alternative approach to network meta-analysis (NMA). However, readers of Research Synthesis Methods (RSM) will have no difficulty in recognising that arm-based models represent a radical–even revolutionary–departure from current meta-analytic practice. In this commentary, we begin by outlining the key differences between arm-and contrast-based meta-analysis to make clear the true extent of the implications of the claims being made. We then argue that contrast based models are to be preferred on both theoretical and practical grounds. Hong and colleagues present a number of arguments about the core assumptions of contrast-based models, both in their RSM paper (Hong et al., 2015a) and previously (Zhang et al., 2014, Ohlssen et al., 2014, Zhang et al., 2015, Hong et al., 2015b), which we believe are mistaken. We offer some counter-arguments and comment on the simulation study presented by Hong et al.(2015a).
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2
作者：
Achana, Felix A.;Cooper, Nicola J.;Sutton, Alex J.
通讯作者：
Sutton, Alex J.
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Senn, Stephen
通讯作者：
Senn, Stephen
影响因子：
2
作者：
Hong, Hwanhee;Fu, Haoda;Carlin, Bradley P.
通讯作者：
Carlin, Bradley P.
DOI：
10.1177/0272989x13485155
发表时间：
2013-07
期刊：
Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
影响因子：
--
作者：
Dias S;Welton NJ;Sutton AJ;Ades AE
通讯作者：
Ades AE
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Bujkiewicz, Sylwia;Thompson, John R.;Abrams, Keith R.
通讯作者：
Abrams, Keith R.