Cargando…

Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?

Identifying which individuals benefit most from particular treatments or other interventions underpins so-called personalised or stratified medicine. However, single trials are typically underpowered for exploring whether participant characteristics, such as age or disease severity, determine an ind...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fisher, David J, Carpenter, James R, Morris, Tim P, Freeman, Suzanne C, Tierney, Jayne F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28258124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j573
_version_ 1783234584424480768
author Fisher, David J
Carpenter, James R
Morris, Tim P
Freeman, Suzanne C
Tierney, Jayne F
author_facet Fisher, David J
Carpenter, James R
Morris, Tim P
Freeman, Suzanne C
Tierney, Jayne F
author_sort Fisher, David J
collection PubMed
description Identifying which individuals benefit most from particular treatments or other interventions underpins so-called personalised or stratified medicine. However, single trials are typically underpowered for exploring whether participant characteristics, such as age or disease severity, determine an individual’s response to treatment. A meta-analysis of multiple trials, particularly one where individual participant data (IPD) are available, provides greater power to investigate interactions between participant characteristics (covariates) and treatment effects. We use a published IPD meta-analysis to illustrate three broad approaches used for testing such interactions. Based on another systematic review of recently published IPD meta-analyses, we also show that all three approaches can be applied to aggregate data as well as IPD. We also summarise which methods of analysing and presenting interactions are in current use, and describe their advantages and disadvantages. We recommend that testing for interactions using within-trials information alone (the deft approach) becomes standard practice, alongside graphical presentation that directly visualises this.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5421441
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54214412017-05-12 Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach? Fisher, David J Carpenter, James R Morris, Tim P Freeman, Suzanne C Tierney, Jayne F BMJ Research Methods & Reporting Identifying which individuals benefit most from particular treatments or other interventions underpins so-called personalised or stratified medicine. However, single trials are typically underpowered for exploring whether participant characteristics, such as age or disease severity, determine an individual’s response to treatment. A meta-analysis of multiple trials, particularly one where individual participant data (IPD) are available, provides greater power to investigate interactions between participant characteristics (covariates) and treatment effects. We use a published IPD meta-analysis to illustrate three broad approaches used for testing such interactions. Based on another systematic review of recently published IPD meta-analyses, we also show that all three approaches can be applied to aggregate data as well as IPD. We also summarise which methods of analysing and presenting interactions are in current use, and describe their advantages and disadvantages. We recommend that testing for interactions using within-trials information alone (the deft approach) becomes standard practice, alongside graphical presentation that directly visualises this. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2017-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5421441/ /pubmed/28258124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j573 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Research Methods & Reporting
Fisher, David J
Carpenter, James R
Morris, Tim P
Freeman, Suzanne C
Tierney, Jayne F
Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?
title Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?
title_full Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?
title_fullStr Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?
title_full_unstemmed Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?
title_short Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?
title_sort meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?
topic Research Methods & Reporting
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28258124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j573
work_keys_str_mv AT fisherdavidj metaanalyticalmethodstoidentifywhobenefitsmostfromtreatmentsdaftdeludedordeftapproach
AT carpenterjamesr metaanalyticalmethodstoidentifywhobenefitsmostfromtreatmentsdaftdeludedordeftapproach
AT morristimp metaanalyticalmethodstoidentifywhobenefitsmostfromtreatmentsdaftdeludedordeftapproach
AT freemansuzannec metaanalyticalmethodstoidentifywhobenefitsmostfromtreatmentsdaftdeludedordeftapproach
AT tierneyjaynef metaanalyticalmethodstoidentifywhobenefitsmostfromtreatmentsdaftdeludedordeftapproach