Accounting for correlation in network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials
Accounting for correlation in network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jrsm.1049
复制
发表时间：
2012-06-01
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Welton, N. J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Franchini, A. J.;Dias, S.;Welton, N. J.
多臂试验（超过两个臂的试验）是网络荟萃分析（NMA）特别有价值的证据形式。试验结果可以作为臂级摘要（报告每个臂的效果测量）或对比级别摘要（其中将臂之间的效果差异与试验中选择的对照组进行比较）提供。我们表明，如果只有双臂试验，则对比度级别和臂级别格式的基于似然的推断是相同的，但如果存在多臂试验，则对比度级别格式的结果将不正确，除非在似然中考虑相关性。我们通过多臂试验回顾了 NMA 的贝叶斯和频率论软件，这些软件可以解释这种相关性，并给出一个说明性示例，说明如果不合并相关性，可以引入的估计差异。我们讨论了当无法从报告的结果中推导出相关性时的插补相关性的方法，并敦促试验者报告控制臂的标准误差，即使仅报告对比度水平的摘要。版权所有 (C) 2012 约翰·威利父子有限公司
Multi-arm trials (trials with more than two arms) are particularly valuable forms of evidence for network meta-analysis (NMA). Trial results are available either as arm-level summaries, where effect measures are reported for each arm, or as contrast-level summaries, where the differences in effect between arms compare with the control arm chosen for the trial. We show that likelihood-based inference in both contrast-level and arm-level formats is identical if there are only two-arm trials, but that if there are multi-arm trials, results from the contrast-level format will be incorrect unless correlations are accounted for in the likelihood. We review Bayesian and frequentist software for NMA with multi-arm trials that can account for this correlation and give an illustrative example of the difference in estimates that can be introduced if the correlations are not incorporated. We discuss methods of imputing correlations when they cannot be derived from the reported results and urge trialists to report the standard error for the control arm even if only contrast-level summaries are reported. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.