Cargando…

A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis

In meta‐analytic studies, there are often multiple moderators available (eg, study characteristics). In such cases, traditional meta‐analysis methods often lack sufficient power to investigate interaction effects between moderators, especially high‐order interactions. To overcome this problem, meta‐...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Xinru, Dusseldorp, Elise, Meulman, Jacqueline J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6590644/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511514
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1334
_version_ 1783429605064966144
author Li, Xinru
Dusseldorp, Elise
Meulman, Jacqueline J.
author_facet Li, Xinru
Dusseldorp, Elise
Meulman, Jacqueline J.
author_sort Li, Xinru
collection PubMed
description In meta‐analytic studies, there are often multiple moderators available (eg, study characteristics). In such cases, traditional meta‐analysis methods often lack sufficient power to investigate interaction effects between moderators, especially high‐order interactions. To overcome this problem, meta‐CART was proposed: an approach that applies classification and regression trees (CART) to identify interactions, and then subgroup meta‐analysis to test the significance of moderator effects. The aim of this study is to improve meta‐CART upon two aspects: 1) to integrate the two steps of the approach into one and 2) to consistently take into account the fixed‐effect or random‐effects assumption in both the the interaction identification and testing process. For fixed effect meta‐CART, weights are applied, and subgroup analysis is adapted. For random effects meta‐CART, a new algorithm has been developed. The performance of the improved meta‐CART was investigated via an extensive simulation study on different types of moderator variables (ie, dichotomous, nominal, ordinal, and continuous variables). The simulation results revealed that the new method can achieve satisfactory performance (power greater than 0.80 and Type I error less than 0.05) if appropriate pruning rule is applied and the number of studies is large enough. The required minimum number of studies ranges from 40 to 120 depending on the complexity and strength of the interaction effects, the within‐study sample size, the type of moderators, and the residual heterogeneity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6590644
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65906442019-07-08 A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis Li, Xinru Dusseldorp, Elise Meulman, Jacqueline J. Res Synth Methods Research Articles In meta‐analytic studies, there are often multiple moderators available (eg, study characteristics). In such cases, traditional meta‐analysis methods often lack sufficient power to investigate interaction effects between moderators, especially high‐order interactions. To overcome this problem, meta‐CART was proposed: an approach that applies classification and regression trees (CART) to identify interactions, and then subgroup meta‐analysis to test the significance of moderator effects. The aim of this study is to improve meta‐CART upon two aspects: 1) to integrate the two steps of the approach into one and 2) to consistently take into account the fixed‐effect or random‐effects assumption in both the the interaction identification and testing process. For fixed effect meta‐CART, weights are applied, and subgroup analysis is adapted. For random effects meta‐CART, a new algorithm has been developed. The performance of the improved meta‐CART was investigated via an extensive simulation study on different types of moderator variables (ie, dichotomous, nominal, ordinal, and continuous variables). The simulation results revealed that the new method can achieve satisfactory performance (power greater than 0.80 and Type I error less than 0.05) if appropriate pruning rule is applied and the number of studies is large enough. The required minimum number of studies ranges from 40 to 120 depending on the complexity and strength of the interaction effects, the within‐study sample size, the type of moderators, and the residual heterogeneity. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-01-09 2019-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6590644/ /pubmed/30511514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1334 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Li, Xinru
Dusseldorp, Elise
Meulman, Jacqueline J.
A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis
title A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis
title_full A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis
title_fullStr A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis
title_short A flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis
title_sort flexible approach to identify interaction effects between moderators in meta‐analysis
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6590644/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511514
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1334
work_keys_str_mv AT lixinru aflexibleapproachtoidentifyinteractioneffectsbetweenmoderatorsinmetaanalysis
AT dusseldorpelise aflexibleapproachtoidentifyinteractioneffectsbetweenmoderatorsinmetaanalysis
AT meulmanjacquelinej aflexibleapproachtoidentifyinteractioneffectsbetweenmoderatorsinmetaanalysis
AT lixinru flexibleapproachtoidentifyinteractioneffectsbetweenmoderatorsinmetaanalysis
AT dusseldorpelise flexibleapproachtoidentifyinteractioneffectsbetweenmoderatorsinmetaanalysis
AT meulmanjacquelinej flexibleapproachtoidentifyinteractioneffectsbetweenmoderatorsinmetaanalysis